From: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
"zhangwei(Jovi)" <jovi.zhangwei@huawei.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@ghostprotocols.net>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] tracing: fix open/delete fixes
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 17:18:23 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <51E7A4CF.2050404@hitachi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130717144357.GA7358@redhat.com>
(2013/07/17 23:43), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 07/17, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>>
>> At a glance, you're trying to change which operation will be
>> failed. Currently, user can not remove an event while someone
>> opens files which related to the event. And this approach
>> changes that the someone can remove the event even if the
>> files are opened (and read/write operation will be failed).
>> Am I understand correctly?
>
> Yes.
>
> Once again, I am still not sure and I am asking for your review.
OK,
> But to me this looks much better. To simplify the discussion, lets
> consider ftrace_enable_fops in particular.
>
> - Why should .open() block rmdir or unregister_uprobe_event?
Because it is opened and under preparing for use. :)
But, yeah, if we expect there is only one user using
ftrace, accessing the removing event file is meaningless.
It should be failed.
> - Why do we need .open() at all? Whatever it can do to
> validate file/call/etc, .read/write can do the same.
Currently, just for preparing and reserving.
> - If we kill .open/release, we do not need the nontrivial
> refcounting. Everything becomes simple, no need to keep
> the state "in between".
That also means to refrain checking existence under locking mutex
in all operations. And we have to check it, which I actually concern.
refcounting is not so small and itself is complex, but it just
needs to inc/dec on open/close.
> We need event_mutex anyway (and note that other f_op's can
> also rely on other locks taken by trace_remove_event_call),
> the validation degrades to the trivial != NULL check.
>
> - This also simplifies trace_remove_event_call() paths, we
> know that once it takes event_mutex nobody can play with
> ftrace_event_file/ftrace_event_call we are going to free.
Hmm, it seems that we can remove only refcount check, or more?
Thank you,
--
Masami HIRAMATSU
IT Management Research Dept. Linux Technology Center
Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory
E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-07-18 8:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-07-16 18:56 Oleg Nesterov
2013-07-16 18:57 ` [RFC PATCH 1/4] tracing: Change remove_event_from_tracers() to clear d_subdirs->i_private Oleg Nesterov
2013-07-16 18:57 ` [RFC PATCH 2/4] tracing: Turn "id"->i_private into call->event.type Oleg Nesterov
2013-07-16 19:49 ` Steven Rostedt
2013-07-17 19:39 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-07-16 18:57 ` [RFC PATCH 3/4] tracing: Kill tracing_open/release_generic_file Oleg Nesterov
2013-07-16 19:51 ` Steven Rostedt
2013-07-17 19:19 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-07-18 10:56 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2013-07-18 14:55 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-07-16 18:57 ` [RFC PATCH 4/4] tracing: Change ftrace_event_filter_fops to rely on event_mutex/i_private Oleg Nesterov
2013-07-17 2:36 ` [RFC PATCH 0/4] tracing: fix open/delete fixes Masami Hiramatsu
2013-07-17 14:43 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-07-18 8:18 ` Masami Hiramatsu [this message]
2013-07-18 15:27 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-07-17 19:30 ` [RFC PATCH 5/4] tracing: Simplify the ftrace_event_field iteration in f_next/f_show Oleg Nesterov
2013-07-17 19:37 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-07-17 19:30 ` [RFC PATCH 6/4] tracing: Change f_start() to verify i_private under event_mutex Oleg Nesterov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=51E7A4CF.2050404@hitachi.com \
--to=masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=acme@ghostprotocols.net \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=jolsa@redhat.com \
--cc=jovi.zhangwei@huawei.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome