On 12/21, Anton Arapov wrote: > > There are RFC uretprobes implementation. I'd be grateful for any review.
Anton, I won't look at this series till Monday (at least). But at first glance it needs a lot of cleanups and _fixes_. If nothing else, ->return_instances logic looks very wrong (but again, I didn't really read this series and I already had a beer ;). Just for example. Suppose that you insert uretprobe at exit() in glibc(). IOW, handle_swbp(rp_trampoline_vaddr) never happens. Who will cleanup utask->return_instances and kfree() return_instance's? Or. return_consumer_del() simply removes uprobe_consumer. Again, somehow we should free the "pending" return_instance's. Plus we should restore the original return adresses connected to these return_instance's. Just suppose that uretprobe_run_handlers() is called after uprobe has gone away. In this case ri->uprobe points to nowhere. Oleg. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
