[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200825133005.GY1362448@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 15:30:05 +0200
From: peterz@...radead.org
To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Cc: "Eddy_Wu@...ndmicro.com" <Eddy_Wu@...ndmicro.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: x86/kprobes: kretprobe fails to triggered if kprobe at function
entry is not optimized (trigger by int3 breakpoint)
On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 10:15:55PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > damn... one last problem is dangling instances.. so close.
> > We can apparently unregister a kretprobe while there's still active
> > kretprobe_instance's out referencing it.
>
> Yeah, kretprobe already provided the per-instance data (as far as
> I know, only systemtap depends on it). We need to provide it for
> such users.
> But if we only have one lock, we can avoid checking NMI because
> we can check the recursion with trylock. It is needed only if the
> kretprobe uses per-instance data. Or we can just pass a dummy
> instance on the stack.
I think it is true in general, you can unregister a rp while tasks are
preempted.
Anyway,. I think I have a solution, just need to talk to paulmck for a
bit.
> > Ignoring that issue for the moment, the below seems to actually work.
>
> OK, this looks good to me too.
> I'll make a series to rewrite kretprobe based on this patch, OK?
Please, I'll send the fix along when I have it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists