On 09/09, Anton Arapov wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 08, 2013 at 06:32:32PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > Not sure, but I can be easily wrong... afaics we need something like below, > > no? > > Anton? > > Oleg, your guess is correct. > > My original intention was to limit by depth the chained only probes. But > later, > after your review, we've decided /based on safety concerns/ to limit it hard.
Chained or not, we allocate return_instance every time, so we certainly need to account to limit the depth unconditionally. Unless we reuse the same return_instance if chained, but this is another story. > The decrement 'utask->depth--;' in my own tree is above the 'if (!chained)' > check. I think it got mangled somehow when I rebased the code before I sent it > to lkml. OK, thanks, I'll write the changelog and re-send the patch below. > Anton. > > > > Oleg. > > > > --- x/kernel/events/uprobes.c > > +++ x/kernel/events/uprobes.c > > @@ -1682,12 +1682,10 @@ static bool handle_trampoline(struct pt_ > > tmp = ri; > > ri = ri->next; > > kfree(tmp); > > + utask->depth--; > > > > if (!chained) > > break; > > - > > - utask->depth--; > > - > > BUG_ON(!ri); > > } -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
