Re: [PATCH 5/7] uprobes: Introduce filter_chain()

[Srikar Dronamraju]

* Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> [2012-11-23 21:28:12]:

> Add the new helper filter_chain(). Currently it is only placeholder,
> the comment explains what is should do. We will change it later to
> consult every consumer to decide whether we need to install the swbp.
> Until then it works as if any consumer returns true, this matches the
> current behavior.
> 
> Change install_breakpoint() to call filter_chain() instead of checking
> uprobe->consumers != NULL. We obviously need this, and this equally
> closes the race with _unregister().
> 
> Change remove_breakpoint() to call this helper too. Currently this is
> pointless because remove_breakpoint() is only called when the last
> consumer goes away, but we will change this.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>

Acked-by: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

> ---
>  kernel/events/uprobes.c |   24 +++++++++++++++++++-----
>  1 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/events/uprobes.c b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> index e761974..edc47ae 100644
> --- a/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> +++ b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> @@ -614,6 +614,18 @@ static int prepare_uprobe(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct file *file,
>  	return ret;
>  }
> 
> +static bool filter_chain(struct uprobe *uprobe)
> +{
> +	/*
> +	 * TODO:
> +	 *	for_each_consumer(uc)
> +	 *		if (uc->filter(...))
> +	 *			return true;
> +	 *	return false;
> +	 */
> +	return uprobe->consumers != NULL;
> +}
> +
>  static int
>  install_breakpoint(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct mm_struct *mm,
>  			struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long vaddr)
> @@ -624,11 +636,10 @@ install_breakpoint(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct mm_struct *mm,
>  	/*
>  	 * If probe is being deleted, unregister thread could be done with
>  	 * the vma-rmap-walk through. Adding a probe now can be fatal since
> -	 * nobody will be able to cleanup. Also we could be from fork or
> -	 * mremap path, where the probe might have already been inserted.
> -	 * Hence behave as if probe already existed.
> +	 * nobody will be able to cleanup. But in this case filter_chain()
> +	 * must return false, all consumers have gone away.
>  	 */
> -	if (!uprobe->consumers)
> +	if (!filter_chain(uprobe))
>  		return 0;
> 
>  	ret = prepare_uprobe(uprobe, vma->vm_file, mm, vaddr);
> @@ -655,10 +666,12 @@ install_breakpoint(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct mm_struct *mm,
>  static int
>  remove_breakpoint(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long vaddr)
>  {
> -	/* can happen if uprobe_register() fails */
>  	if (!test_bit(MMF_HAS_UPROBES, &mm->flags))
>  		return 0;
> 
> +	if (filter_chain(uprobe))
> +		return 0;
> +
>  	set_bit(MMF_RECALC_UPROBES, &mm->flags);
>  	return set_orig_insn(&uprobe->arch, mm, vaddr);
>  }
> @@ -1382,6 +1395,7 @@ static void mmf_recalc_uprobes(struct mm_struct *mm)
>  		 * This is not strictly accurate, we can race with
>  		 * uprobe_unregister() and see the already removed
>  		 * uprobe if delete_uprobe() was not yet called.
> +		 * Or this uprobe can be filtered out.
>  		 */
>  		if (vma_has_uprobes(vma, vma->vm_start, vma->vm_end))
>  			return;
> -- 
> 1.5.5.1
> 

--
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/