[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240917122204.GB7752@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2024 14:22:05 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>, Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 02/14] uprobe: Add support for session consumer
On 09/17, Jiri Olsa wrote:
>
> static void handler_chain(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct pt_regs *regs)
...
> + if (!ignore && !ZERO_OR_NULL_PTR(ri)) {
> + /*
> + * The push_idx value has the final number of return consumers,
> + * and ri->consumers_cnt has number of allocated consumers.
> + */
> + ri->consumers_cnt = push_idx;
> + prepare_uretprobe(uprobe, regs, ri);
> + }
This looks wrong. ri is not kfreed if ignore == true.
But see my previous email, if we change this code as I tried to suggest
the problem goes away and handler_chain() doesn't need "bool ignore".
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists