Re: [PATCH v5 3.1.0-rc4-tip 3/26] Uprobes: register/unregisterprobes.

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 10/05, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
>
> Agree. Infact I encountered this problem last week and had fixed it.
> In mycase, I had mapped the file read and write while trying to insert
> probes.
> The changed code looks like this
>
> 	if (!vma)
> 		return NULL;

This is unneeded, vma_prio_tree_foreach() stops when vma_prio_tree_next()
returns NULL. IOW, you can never see vma == NULL.

> 	if (!valid_vma(vma))
> 		continue;

Yes.

> > > +	mutex_lock(&inode->i_mutex);
> > > +	uprobe = alloc_uprobe(inode, offset);
> >
> > Looks like, alloc_uprobe() doesn't need ->i_mutex.
>
>
> Actually this was pointed out by you in the last review.
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/7/24/91

OOPS ;) may be deserves a comment...

> > > +void unregister_uprobe(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset,
> > > +				struct uprobe_consumer *consumer)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct uprobe *uprobe;
> > > +
> > > +	inode = igrab(inode);
> > > +	if (!inode || !consumer)
> > > +		return;
> > > +
> > > +	if (offset > inode->i_size)
> > > +		return;
> > > +
> > > +	uprobe = find_uprobe(inode, offset);
> > > +	if (!uprobe)
> > > +		return;
> > > +
> > > +	if (!del_consumer(uprobe, consumer)) {
> > > +		put_uprobe(uprobe);
> > > +		return;
> > > +	}
> > > +
> > > +	mutex_lock(&inode->i_mutex);
> > > +	if (!uprobe->consumers)
> > > +		__unregister_uprobe(inode, offset, uprobe);
> >
> > It seemes that del_consumer() should be done under ->i_mutex. If it
> > removes the last consumer, we can race with register_uprobe() which
> > takes ->i_mutex before us and does another __register_uprobe(), no?
>
> We should still be okay, because we check for the consumers before we
> do the actual unregister in form of __unregister_uprobe.
> since the consumer is again added by the time we get the lock, we dont
> do the actual unregistration and go as if del_consumer deleted one
> consumer but not the last.

Yes, but I meant in this case register_uprobe() does the unnecessary
__register_uprobe() because it sees ->consumers == NULL (add_consumer()
returns NULL).

I guess this is probably harmless because of is_bkpt_insn/-EEXIST
logic, but still.


Btw. __register_uprobe() does

		ret = install_breakpoint(mm, uprobe, vma, vi->vaddr);
		if (ret && (ret != -ESRCH || ret != -EEXIST)) {
			up_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
			mmput(mm);
			break;
		}
		ret = 0;
		up_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
		mmput(mm);

Yes, this is cosmetic, but why do we duplicate up_read/mmput ?

Up to you, but

		ret = install_breakpoint(mm, uprobe, vma, vi->vaddr);
		up_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
		mmput(mm);

		if (ret) {
			if (ret != -ESRCH && ret != -EEXIST)
				break;
			ret = 0;
		}

Looks a bit simpler.

Oh, wait. I just noticed that the original code does

	(ret != -ESRCH || ret != -EEXIST)

this expression is always true ;)

Oleg.

--
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/