On Thu, Sep 04, 2025 at 10:49:50AM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 09/03, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 03, 2025 at 01:26:48PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > On 09/02, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If user decided to take execution elsewhere, it makes little sense
> > > > to execute the original instruction, so let's skip it.
> > >
> > > Exactly.
> > >
> > > So why do we need all these "is_unique" complications? Only a single
> > > is_unique/exclusive consumer can change regs->ip, so I guess handle_swbp()
> > > can just do
> > >
> > > handler_chain(uprobe, regs);
> > > if (instruction_pointer(regs) != bp_vaddr)
> > > goto out;
> >
> > hum, that's what I did in rfc [1] but I thought you did not like that [2]
> >
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]/
> > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]/
> >
> > I guess I misunderstood your reply [2], I'd be happy to drop the
> > unique/exclusive flag
>
> Well, but that rfc didn't introduce the exclusive consumers, and I think
> we agree that even with these changes the non-exclusive consumers must
> never change regs->ip?
ok, got excited too soon.. so you meant getting rid of is_unique
check only for this patch and have just change below.. but keep
the unique/exclusive flag from patch#1
IIUC Andrii would remove the unique flag completely?
jirka
--
diff --git a/kernel/events/uprobes.c b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
index b9b088f7333a..1baf5d2792ff 100644
--- a/kernel/events/uprobes.c
+++ b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
@@ -2791,6 +2791,9 @@ static void handle_swbp(struct pt_regs *regs)
handler_chain(uprobe, regs);
+ if (instruction_pointer(regs) != bp_vaddr)
+ goto out;
+
/* Try to optimize after first hit. */
arch_uprobe_optimize(&uprobe->arch, bp_vaddr);
