Re: [PATCH] uprobes: Fix limiting un-nested return probes

2013-09-11 Thread Hemant
Hi Oleg, On 09/09/2013 08:25 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote: 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

Re: [PATCH] uprobes: Fix limiting un-nested return probes

2013-09-09 Thread Oleg Nesterov
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

Re: [PATCH] uprobes: Fix limiting un-nested return probes

2013-09-09 Thread Anton Arapov
On Sun, Sep 08, 2013 at 06:32:32PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > Sorry for delay, vacation. > > On 09/03, Hemant Kumar Shaw wrote: > > > > There exists a limit to the number of nested return probes. The current > > limit is 64. > > However this limit is getting enforced on even non nested return

Re: [PATCH] uprobes: Fix limiting un-nested return probes

2013-09-08 Thread Oleg Nesterov
Sorry for delay, vacation. On 09/03, Hemant Kumar Shaw wrote: > > There exists a limit to the number of nested return probes. The current limit > is 64. > However this limit is getting enforced on even non nested return probes. > Hence, registering 64 independent non nested return probes results

[PATCH] uprobes: Fix limiting un-nested return probes

2013-09-02 Thread Hemant Kumar Shaw
Here is a sample program which shows a problem in uretprobes: #include int some_work(int num) { while (num != 0) num--; return 0; }; int main(int argc, char **argv) { if (argc != 2) return EXIT_FAILURE; int num = atoi(argv[1]);