On 06/05, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 06/05, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > > +/*
> > > + * Make sure all the uprobe consumers have only one type of entry
> > > + * callback registered (either handler or handler_session) due to
> > > + * different return value actions.
> > > + */
> > > +static int consumer_check(struct uprobe_consumer *curr, struct
> > > uprobe_consumer *uc)
> > > +{
> > > + if (!curr)
> > > + return 0;
> > > + if (curr->handler_session || uc->handler_session)
> > > + return -EBUSY;
> > > + return 0;
> > > +}
> >
> > Hmm, I don't understand this code, it doesn't match the comment...
> >
> > The comment says "all the uprobe consumers have only one type" but
> > consumer_check() will always fail if the the 1st or 2nd consumer has
> > ->handler_session != NULL ?
> >
> > Perhaps you meant
> >
> > if (!!curr->handler != !!uc->handler)
> > return -EBUSY;
> >
> > ?
>
> OK, the changelog says
>
> Which means that there can be only single user of a uprobe (inode +
> offset) when session consumer is registered to it.
>
> so the code is correct. But I still think the comment is misleading.
Cough... perhaps it is correct but I am still confused even we forget about
the comment ;)
OK, uprobe can have a single consumer with ->handler_session != NULL. I guess
this is because return_instance->data is "global".
So uprobe can have multiple handler_session == NULL consumers before
handler_session != NULL, but not after ?
Oleg.
