Re: [PATCH 1/3] uprobes: install_breakpoint() should fail ifis_swbp_insn() == T

[Srikar Dronamraju]

> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  kernel/events/uprobes.c |    2 +-
> >  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/events/uprobes.c b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> > index 8c5e043..1593b43 100644
> > --- a/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> > +++ b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> > @@ -704,7 +704,7 @@ install_breakpoint(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct mm_struct *mm,
> >  			return ret;
> >  
> >  		if (is_swbp_insn((uprobe_opcode_t *)uprobe->arch.insn))
> > -			return -EEXIST;
> > +			return -ENOTSUPP;
> >  
> >  		ret = arch_uprobe_analyze_insn(&uprobe->arch, mm);
> >  		if (ret)
> 
> IIRC this -EEXIST existed because the vma iteration it does is racy and
> one can encounter the same vma twice or so. See the special -EEXIST
> handling in register_for_each_vma().
> 
> Changing it like this would break stuff. 
> 

Peter, 

is_swbp_insn() is looking at the copy of the instruction thats read from
the file. This path is only taken even before any mm's are inserted with
the breakpoint instruction.

We still check and return -EEXIST if the memory while inserting the breakpoint
instruction  already has a breakpoint.

Hence this change is correct. 

-- 
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/