Re: [PATCH v5 3.1.0-rc4-tip 5/26] Uprobes: copy of the originalinstruction.

[Srikar Dronamraju]

* Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> [2011-10-03 18:29:05]:

> On 09/20, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> >
> > +static int __copy_insn(struct address_space *mapping,
> > +			struct vm_area_struct *vma, char *insn,
> > +			unsigned long nbytes, unsigned long offset)
> > +{
> > +	struct file *filp = vma->vm_file;
> > +	struct page *page;
> > +	void *vaddr;
> > +	unsigned long off1;
> > +	unsigned long idx;
> > +
> > +	if (!filp)
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > +	idx = (unsigned long) (offset >> PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT);
> > +	off1 = offset &= ~PAGE_MASK;
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Ensure that the page that has the original instruction is
> > +	 * populated and in page-cache.
> > +	 */
> 
> Hmm. But how we can ensure?


> 
> > +	page_cache_sync_readahead(mapping, &filp->f_ra, filp, idx, 1);
> 
> This schedules the i/o,
> 
> > +	page = grab_cache_page(mapping, idx);
> 
> This finds/locks the page in the page-cache,
> 
> > +	if (!page)
> > +		return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > +	vaddr = kmap_atomic(page);
> > +	memcpy(insn, vaddr + off1, nbytes);
> 
> What if this page is not PageUptodate() ?

Since we do a synchronous read ahead, I thought the page would be 
populated and upto date. 

would these two lines after grab_cache_page help?

	if (!PageUptodate(page)) 
		mapping->a_ops->readpage(filp, page);


> 
> Somehow this assumes that the i/o was already completed, I don't
> understand this.
> 
> But I am starting to think I simply do not understand this change.
> To the point, I do not underestand why do we need copy_insn() at all.
> We are going to replace this page, can't we save/analyze ->insn later
> when we copy the content of the old page? Most probably I missed
> something simple...
> 
> 
> > +static struct task_struct *get_mm_owner(struct mm_struct *mm)
> > +{
> > +	struct task_struct *tsk;
> > +
> > +	rcu_read_lock();
> > +	tsk = rcu_dereference(mm->owner);
> > +	if (tsk)
> > +		get_task_struct(tsk);
> > +	rcu_read_unlock();
> > +	return tsk;
> > +}
> 
> Hmm. Do we really need task_struct?
> 
> > -static int install_breakpoint(struct mm_struct *mm, struct uprobe *uprobe)
> > +static int install_breakpoint(struct mm_struct *mm, struct uprobe *uprobe,
> > +				struct vm_area_struct *vma, loff_t vaddr)
> >  {
> > -	/* Placeholder: Yet to be implemented */
> > +	struct task_struct *tsk;
> > +	unsigned long addr;
> > +	int ret = -EINVAL;
> > +
> >  	if (!uprobe->consumers)
> >  		return 0;
> >
> > -	atomic_inc(&mm->mm_uprobes_count);
> > -	return 0;
> > +	tsk = get_mm_owner(mm);
> > +	if (!tsk)	/* task is probably exiting; bail-out */
> > +		return -ESRCH;
> > +
> > +	if (vaddr > TASK_SIZE_OF(tsk))
> > +		goto put_return;
> 
> But this should not be possible, no? How it can map this vaddr above
> TASK_SIZE ?
> 
> get_user_pages(tsk => NULL) is fine. Why else do we need mm->owner ?

> 
> Probably used by the next patches... Say, is_32bit_app(tsk). This
> can use mm->context.ia32_compat (hopefully will be replaced with
> MMF_COMPAT).
> 

We used the tsk struct for checking if the application was 32 bit and
for calling get_user_pages. Since we can pass NULL to get_user_pages and
since we can use mm->context.ia32_compat or MMF_COMPAT, I will remove
get_mm_owner, that way we dont need to be dependent on CONFIG_MM_OWNER.

-- 
Thanks and Regards
Srikar
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/