Re: [BUGFIX PATCH] kprobes: Fix to cancel optimizing/unoptimizing kprobes correctly

[Steven Rostedt]

On Tue,  7 Jan 2020 23:42:24 +0900
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> optimize_kprobe() and unoptimize_kprobe() cancels if given kprobe
> is on the optimizing_list or unoptimizing_list. However, since
> commit f66c0447cca1 ("kprobes: Set unoptimized flag after
> unoptimizing code") modified the update timing of the
> KPROBE_FLAG_OPTIMIZED, it doesn't work as expected anymore.
> 
> The optimized_kprobe could be following states.
> 
> - [optimizing]: Before inserting jump instruction
>   op.kp->flags has KPROBE_FLAG_OPTIMIZED and
>   op->list is not empty.
> 
> - [optimized]: jump inserted
>   op.kp->flags has KPROBE_FLAG_OPTIMIZED and
>   op->list is empty.
> 
> - [unoptimizing]: Before removing jump instruction (including unused
>   optprobe)
>   op.kp->flags has KPROBE_FLAG_OPTIMIZED and
>   op->list is not empty.
> 
> - [unoptimized]: jump removed
>   op.kp->flags doesn't have KPROBE_FLAG_OPTIMIZED and
>   op->list is empty.
> 
> Current code mis-expects [unoptimizing] state doesn't have
> KPROBE_FLAG_OPTIMIZED, and that can cause wrong results.
> 
> This introduces optprobe_queued_unopt() to distinguish [optimizing]
> and [unoptimizing] states and fixes logics in optimize_kprobe() and
> unoptimize_kprobe().
> 
> Fixes: f66c0447cca1 ("kprobes: Set unoptimized flag after unoptimizing code")
> Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>

Looks good.

Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx>


>  		return;
>  	}
> +
>  	/* Optimized kprobe case */
> -	if (force)
> +	if (force) {
>  		/* Forcibly update the code: this is a special case */
>  		force_unoptimize_kprobe(op);
> -	else {
> +	} else {
>  		list_add(&op->list, &unoptimizing_list);
>  		kick_kprobe_optimizer();
>  	}

I see you added some clean up to this patch.

-- Steve