From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752219Ab3K2AZP (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 28 Nov 2013 19:25:15 -0500
Received: from lgeamrelo01.lge.com ([156.147.1.125]:55674 "EHLO
	LGEAMRELO01.lge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751317Ab3K2AZM (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 28 Nov 2013 19:25:12 -0500
X-AuditID: 9c93017d-b7b24ae000002834-6c-5297dee601e9
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com>,
        Hyeoncheol Lee <cheol.lee@lge.com>,
        Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "zhangwei\(Jovi\)" <jovi.zhangwei@huawei.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@ghostprotocols.net>,
        Hemant Kumar <hkshaw@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@lge.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 17/17] tracing/uprobes: Add @+file_offset fetch method
References: <1385533203-10014-1-git-send-email-namhyung@kernel.org>
	<1385533203-10014-18-git-send-email-namhyung@kernel.org>
	<20131127185546.GA30544@redhat.com>
	<877gbtq7rb.fsf@sejong.aot.lge.com>
	<20131128163148.GA15985@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 09:25:10 +0900
In-Reply-To: <20131128163148.GA15985@redhat.com> (Oleg Nesterov's message of
	"Thu, 28 Nov 2013 17:31:48 +0100")
Message-ID: <87ob54oxzt.fsf@sejong.aot.lge.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hi Oleg,

On Thu, 28 Nov 2013 17:31:48 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 11/28, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>>
>> I thought we need a fetch_param anyway if we will add support for
>> cross-fetch later.  But I won't insist it strongly, I can delay it to
>> later work and make current code simpler if you want. :)
>
> OK, great,

So do you want me to change to make it simpler without a fetch_param?

>
>> >>  static int uprobe_dispatcher(struct uprobe_consumer *con, struct pt_regs *regs)
>> >>  {
>> >>  	struct trace_uprobe *tu;
>> >> +	struct uprobe_task *utask;
>> >>  	int ret = 0;
>> >>
>> >>  	tu = container_of(con, struct trace_uprobe, consumer);
>> >>  	tu->nhit++;
>> >>
>> >> +	utask = current->utask;
>> >> +	if (utask == NULL)
>> >> +		return UPROBE_HANDLER_REMOVE;
>> >
>> > Hmm, why? The previous change ensures ->utask is not NULL? If we hit
>> > NULL we have a bug, we should not remove this uprobe.
>>
>> Yes, I just want to be defensive. :)
>>
>> So do you suggest to add BUG_ON()?
>
> We are going to crash with the same effect if it is NULL ;)

I see.  I'll just get rid of the if (...) part.

>
>> And can I convert or remove a
>> similar check in uprobes.c:pre_ssout() too?
>
> Well, yes, we _can_ do this. But unless you have the strong opinion
> I'd suggest to not do this. At least right now.
>
> To remind, perhaps we can revert the previous patch later if we find
> a better solution (placeholder).

OK, I'll just leave it as is.

>
> And. Note that we will change this code in any case. I suggested to
> use ->vaddr to avoid the other (potentially conflicting) changes in
> uprobes.h. Even if we use current->utask, we should add another member
> into the union. But again, it would be better to do this later, and
> the change will be trivial.

Got it.  Thank you for the explanation.

Thanks,
Namhyung