On 07/04, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>
> (2013/07/04 12:33), Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > + /* Will fail if probe is being used by ftrace or perf */
> > + if (unregister_probe_event(tp))
> > + return -EBUSY;
> > +
> > __unregister_trace_probe(tp);
> > list_del(&tp->list);
> > - unregister_probe_event(tp);
> >
> > return 0;
> > }
>
> This may cause an unexpected access violation at kprobe handler because
> unregister_probe_event frees event_call/event_files and it will be
> accessed until kprobe is *completely* disabled.
I don't think so... Please correct me.
(but yes I think the patch needs a small update, see below).
> Actually disable_kprobe() doesn't ensure to finish the current running
> kprobe handlers.
Yes. in fact disable_trace_probe(file != NULL) does, but perf doesn't.
> Thus, even if trace_probe_is_enabled() returns false,
> we must do synchronize_sched() for waiting, before unregister_probe_event().
No, I think we should simply kill trace_probe_is_enabled() here.
And synchronize_sched() _before_ unregister_probe_event() can't
help, exactly because trace_probe_is_enabled() is racy.
> OTOH, unregister_kprobe() waits for that.
Yes.
So I think we only need to move kfree(tp->call.print_fmt). In fact I
already wrote the patch assuming that trace_remove_event_call() will
be changed as we discussed.
So the sequence should be:
if (trace_remove_event_call(...))
return;
/* does synchronize_sched */
unregister_kprobe();
kfree(everything);
Agreed?
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
