[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20240711110400.768061729@infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 13:02:40 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: mingo@...nel.org,
andrii@...nel.org,
oleg@...hat.com
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
peterz@...radead.org,
rostedt@...dmis.org,
mhiramat@...nel.org,
jolsa@...nel.org,
clm@...a.com,
paulmck@...nel.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 05/11] perf/uprobe: Simplify UPROBE_HANDLER_REMOVE logic
Specifically, get rid of the uprobe->consumers re-load, which isn't
sound under RCU.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
---
kernel/events/uprobes.c | 17 ++++++++++++++---
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
--- a/kernel/events/uprobes.c
+++ b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
@@ -2101,6 +2101,7 @@ static void handler_chain(struct uprobe
struct uprobe_consumer *uc;
int remove = UPROBE_HANDLER_REMOVE;
bool need_prep = false; /* prepare return uprobe, when needed */
+ bool had_handler = false;
down_read(&uprobe->register_rwsem);
for (uc = uprobe->consumers; uc; uc = uc->next) {
@@ -2115,16 +2116,26 @@ static void handler_chain(struct uprobe
if (uc->ret_handler)
need_prep = true;
+ /*
+ * A single handler that does not mask out REMOVE, means the
+ * probe stays.
+ */
+ had_handler = true;
remove &= rc;
}
+ /*
+ * If there were no handlers called, nobody asked for it to be removed
+ * but also nobody got to mask the value. Fix it up.
+ */
+ if (!had_handler)
+ remove = 0;
+
if (need_prep && !remove)
prepare_uretprobe(uprobe, regs); /* put bp at return */
- if (remove && uprobe->consumers) {
- WARN_ON(!uprobe_is_active(uprobe));
+ if (remove)
unapply_uprobe(uprobe, current->mm);
- }
up_read(&uprobe->register_rwsem);
}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists