linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] uprobes: implement SRCU-protected lifetime for single-stepped uprobe

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20240915145105.GB27726@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2024 16:51:05 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, mhiramat@...nel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jolsa@...nel.org, paulmck@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] uprobes: implement SRCU-protected lifetime for
 single-stepped uprobe

On 09/09, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>
> Similarly to how we SRCU-protect uprobe instance (and avoid refcounting
> it unnecessarily) when waiting for return probe hit, use hprobe approach
> to do the same with single-stepped uprobe. Same hprobe_* primitives are
> used. We also reuse ri_timer() callback to expire both pending
> single-step uprobe and return instances.

Well, I still think it would be better (and much simpler) to simply kill
utask->active_uprobe, iirc I even sent the RFC patch...

Oleg.