On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 02:28:13PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > @@ -1814,7 +1822,7 @@ static int dup_utask(struct task_struct
> > return -ENOMEM;
> >
> > *n = *o;
> > - get_uprobe(n->uprobe);
> > + __srcu_clone_read_lock(&ure
+ bpf
On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 4:07 AM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> Both single-step and uretprobes take a refcount on struct uprobe in
> handle_swbp() in order to ensure struct uprobe stays extant until a
> next trap.
>
> Since uprobe_unregister() only cares about the uprobe_consumer
> life-time, an
On 07/11, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> uprobe_free_stage1
> call_srcu(&uretprobe_srcu, &uprobe->rcu, uprobe_free_stage2);
>
> put_uprobe()
> if (refcount_dec_and_test)
> call_srcu(&uprobes_srcu, &uprobe->rcu, uprobe_free_stage1);
>
>
> So my thinking was since we take uretprobe_srcu
On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 06:06:53PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> I'll try to actually apply the whole series and read the code tomorrow.
> Right now I can't understand this change... Just one question for now.
>
> On 07/11, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > @@ -1956,11 +1960,13 @@ static void prepare_
I'll try to actually apply the whole series and read the code tomorrow.
Right now I can't understand this change... Just one question for now.
On 07/11, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> @@ -1956,11 +1960,13 @@ static void prepare_uretprobe(struct upr
>* attack from user-space.
>
Both single-step and uretprobes take a refcount on struct uprobe in
handle_swbp() in order to ensure struct uprobe stays extant until a
next trap.
Since uprobe_unregister() only cares about the uprobe_consumer
life-time, and these intra-trap sections can be arbitrarily large,
create a second SRCU
6 matches
Mail list logo
