Re: [PATCH v4 3.0-rc2-tip 4/22] 4: Uprobes: register/unregisterprobes.

[Srikar Dronamraju]

* Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> [2011-06-13 21:57:01]:

> On 06/07, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> >
> > +int register_uprobe(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset,
> > +				struct uprobe_consumer *consumer)
> > +{
> > +	struct prio_tree_iter iter;
> > +	struct list_head try_list, success_list;
> > +	struct address_space *mapping;
> > +	struct mm_struct *mm, *tmpmm;
> > +	struct vm_area_struct *vma;
> > +	struct uprobe *uprobe;
> > +	int ret = -1;
> > +
> > +	if (!inode || !consumer || consumer->next)
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > +	if (offset > inode->i_size)
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > +	uprobe = alloc_uprobe(inode, offset);
> > +	if (!uprobe)
> > +		return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > +	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&try_list);
> > +	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&success_list);
> > +	mapping = inode->i_mapping;
> > +
> > +	mutex_lock(&uprobes_mutex);
> > +	if (uprobe->consumers) {
> > +		ret = 0;
> > +		goto consumers_add;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	mutex_lock(&mapping->i_mmap_mutex);
> > +	vma_prio_tree_foreach(vma, &iter, &mapping->i_mmap, 0, 0) {
> 
> I didn't actually read this patch yet, but this looks suspicious.
> Why begin == end == 0? Doesn't this mean we are ignoring the mappings
> with vm_pgoff != 0 ?
> 
> Perhaps this should be offset >> PAGE_SIZE?
> 

Okay, 
I guess you meant something like this.

	vma_prio_tree_foreach(vma, &iter, &mapping->i_mmap, pgoff, pgoff) {

where pgoff == offset >> PAGE_SIZE
Right?

-- 
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/