[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAEf4BzZ=vMh9=t3iH+pqwTDaYGfXvuF-0BqaLsOgAx2qV7Vqzw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2024 08:08:49 -0700
From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: andrii@...nel.org, mhiramat@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
jolsa@...nel.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] uprobes: shift put_uprobe() from delete_uprobe() to uprobe_unregister()
On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 5:35 AM Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> Kill the extra get_uprobe() + put_uprobe() in uprobe_unregister() and
> move the possibly final put_uprobe() from delete_uprobe() to its only
> caller, uprobe_unregister().
>
> Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
> ---
> kernel/events/uprobes.c | 14 +++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
LGTM as well.
BTW, do you have anything against me changing refcounting so that
uprobes_tree itself doesn't hold a refcount, and all the refcounting
is done based on consumers holding implicit refcount and whatever
temporary get/put uprobe is necessary for runtime uprobe/uretprobe
functioning.
I can do that with a simple refcount_t and refcount_inc_not_zero(), no
fancy custom refcounting. This schema makes most sense to me, it will
also simplify registration by avoiding that annoying
is_uprobe_active() check + retry. Thoughts?
All that would be additional on top of your change. BTW, do you plan
any more clean ups like this? It's a bit of a moving target because of
your refactoring, so I'd appreciate some stability to build upon :)
Also, can you please push this and your previous patch set into some
branch somewhere I can pull from, preferably based on the latest
linux-trace's probes/for-next? Thanks!
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>
> diff --git a/kernel/events/uprobes.c b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> index c06e1a5f1783..f88b7ff20587 100644
> --- a/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> +++ b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> @@ -939,7 +939,6 @@ static void delete_uprobe(struct uprobe *uprobe)
> rb_erase(&uprobe->rb_node, &uprobes_tree);
> write_unlock(&uprobes_treelock);
> RB_CLEAR_NODE(&uprobe->rb_node); /* for uprobe_is_active() */
> - put_uprobe(uprobe);
> }
>
> struct map_info {
> @@ -1094,7 +1093,6 @@ void uprobe_unregister(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct uprobe_consumer *uc)
> {
> int err;
>
> - get_uprobe(uprobe);
> down_write(&uprobe->register_rwsem);
> if (WARN_ON(!consumer_del(uprobe, uc)))
> err = -ENOENT;
> @@ -1102,10 +1100,16 @@ void uprobe_unregister(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct uprobe_consumer *uc)
> err = register_for_each_vma(uprobe, NULL);
>
> /* TODO : cant unregister? schedule a worker thread */
> - if (!err && !uprobe->consumers)
> - delete_uprobe(uprobe);
> + if (!err) {
> + if (!uprobe->consumers)
> + delete_uprobe(uprobe);
> + else
> + err = -EBUSY;
This bit is weird because really it's not an error... but this makes
this change simpler and moves put_uprobe outside of rwsem. With my
proposed change to refcounting schema this would be unnecessary, but
let's see what you think.
> + }
> up_write(&uprobe->register_rwsem);
> - put_uprobe(uprobe);
> +
> + if (!err)
> + put_uprobe(uprobe);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(uprobe_unregister);
>
> --
> 2.25.1.362.g51ebf55
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists