On 05/11, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 7:45 AM Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 05/08, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > > > > > +static bool resolve_uprobe_addr(unsigned long ip, unsigned long > > > *probe_addr) > > > { > > > - struct vm_area_struct *vma = vma_lookup(current->mm, ip); > > > + struct uprobes_state *state = ¤t->mm->uprobes_state; > > > > it seems that there is a problem, with or without this change... > > > > Lets forget about this patch for the moment, I am still trying to > > understand it. > > > > What if register_for_each_vma() calls install_breakpoint(vma) and > > vma->mm != current->mm ? > > > > In this case install_breakpoint() path will call __is_optimized() and then > > __in_uprobe_trampoline() which does vma_lookup(current->mm). This looks > > obviously wrong ? > > > > And unless I am totally confused, this patch "inherits" the problem... > > > > No? > > > > Yes, sashiko called this out as well. I'm going to pass mm explicitly > into is_optimized and all the way to resolve_uprobe_addr(), easy fix.
Aah... found it: https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260509003146.976844-1-andrii%40kernel.org And note that sashiko is more clever than me; I didn't realize that _unregister() has more problems with current->mm :/ > But we should have a stand-alone easily backportable fix for this even > without my changes, yes. I can add it as pre-patch or send separately. Agreed. This deserves another/simple fix. If nothing else, for documentation. Oleg.
