Re: Re: [PATCH 16/17] uprobes: Allocate ->utask before handler_chain()for tracing handlers

[Masami Hiramatsu]

(2013/12/12 3:11), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 12/11, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>>
>> (2013/12/11 0:57), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>> On 12/10, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>>>>
>>>> and isn't it better to increment
>>>> miss-hit counter of the uprobe?
>>>
>>> What do you mean? This is not miss-hit and ->utask == NULL is quite normal.
>>
>> But it could skip the handler_chain silently. It could confuse users
>> why their probe doesn't hit as expected.
> 
> No, we will restart the same (probed) instruction, handle_swbp()
> will be called again, get_utask() will be called again.

Hmm, in that case, how would you avoid infinite recursive loop??
Would you repeat it until get_utask() != NULL?

> Not to mention that (in practice) if GFP_KERNEL fails the task is
> already killed.
> 
>>> For example, on ppc it can be always NULL because ppc likely emulates the
>>> probed insn.
>>
>> Hmm, in that case, should uprobes handlers never be called on ppc with
>> this change?
> 
> Why? With this change ppc will have ->utask != NULL even if it doesn't
> need it at all.

Ah, I see. This changes that.

Thank you,

-- 
Masami HIRAMATSU
IT Management Research Dept. Linux Technology Center
Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory
E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt@xxxxxxxxxxx


--
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/