[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240730123447.GA9099@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2024 14:34:47 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: andrii@...nel.org, mhiramat@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org
Cc: jolsa@...nel.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] uprobes: change uprobe_register() to use
uprobe_unregister() instead of __uprobe_unregister()
If register_for_each_vma() fails uprobe_register() can safely drop
uprobe->register_rwsem and use uprobe_unregister(). There is no worry
about the races with another register/unregister, consumer_add() was
already called so this case doesn't differ from _unregister() right
after the successful _register().
Yes this means the extra up_write() + down_write(), but this is the
slow and unlikely case anyway.
Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
---
kernel/events/uprobes.c | 12 +++++++-----
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/events/uprobes.c b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
index 974474680820..5ea0aabe8774 100644
--- a/kernel/events/uprobes.c
+++ b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
@@ -1174,16 +1174,18 @@ struct uprobe *uprobe_register(struct inode *inode,
if (likely(uprobe_is_active(uprobe))) {
consumer_add(uprobe, uc);
ret = register_for_each_vma(uprobe, uc);
- if (ret)
- __uprobe_unregister(uprobe, uc);
}
up_write(&uprobe->register_rwsem);
put_uprobe(uprobe);
- if (unlikely(ret == -EAGAIN))
- goto retry;
+ if (ret) {
+ if (unlikely(ret == -EAGAIN))
+ goto retry;
+ uprobe_unregister(uprobe, uc);
+ return ERR_PTR(ret);
+ }
- return ret ? ERR_PTR(ret) : uprobe;
+ return uprobe;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(uprobe_register);
--
2.25.1.362.g51ebf55
Powered by blists - more mailing lists