[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20221026181153.5cf1b967c5c97b68f077cbc6@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2022 18:11:53 +0900
From: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org>
To: "Masami Hiramatsu (Google)" <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Trace Kernel <linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing/fprobe: Fix to check whether fprobe is
registered correctly
On Sun, 23 Oct 2022 23:19:33 +0900
"Masami Hiramatsu (Google)" <mhiramat@...nel.org> wrote:
> From: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org>
>
> Since commit ab51e15d535e ("fprobe: Introduce FPROBE_FL_KPROBE_SHARED flag
> for fprobe") introduced fprobe_kprobe_handler() for fprobe::f_op::func,
> unregister_fprobe() fails to unregister the registered if user specifies
> FPROBE_FL_KPROBE_SHARED flag.
> To check it correctly, it should confirm the fprobe::f_op::func is either
> fprobe_handler() or fprobe_kprobe_handler().
>
> Fixes: ab51e15d535e ("fprobe: Introduce FPROBE_FL_KPROBE_SHARED flag for fprobe")
> Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org>
> ---
> kernel/trace/fprobe.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/trace/fprobe.c b/kernel/trace/fprobe.c
> index aac63ca9c3d1..9000d8ea6274 100644
> --- a/kernel/trace/fprobe.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/fprobe.c
> @@ -301,7 +301,8 @@ int unregister_fprobe(struct fprobe *fp)
> {
> int ret;
>
> - if (!fp || fp->ops.func != fprobe_handler)
> + if (!fp || (fp->ops.func != fprobe_handler &&
> + fp->ops.func != fprobe_kprobe_handler))
Oops, ops.func can be changed by ftrace itself. Hmm, maybe I should check fp->ops.saved_func instead.
Thank you,
> return -EINVAL;
>
> /*
>
--
Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists