On 07/01, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>
> --- a/include/linux/uprobes.h
> +++ b/include/linux/uprobes.h
> @@ -42,6 +42,11 @@ struct uprobe_consumer {
> enum uprobe_filter_ctx ctx,
> struct mm_struct *mm);
>
> + /* associated file offset of this probe */
> + loff_t offset;
> + /* associated refctr file offset of this probe, or zero */
> + loff_t ref_ctr_offset;
> + /* for internal uprobe infra use, consumers shouldn't touch fields
> below */
> struct uprobe_consumer *next;
Well, I don't really like this patch either...
If nothing else because all the consumers in uprobe->consumers list
must have the same offset/ref_ctr_offset.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
But I agree, the ugly uprobe_register_refctr() must die, we need a single
function
int uprobe_register(inode, offset, ref_ctr_offset, consumer);
This change is trivial.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
And speaking of cleanups, I think another change makes sense:
- int uprobe_register(...);
+ struct uprobe* uprobe_register(...);
so that uprobe_register() returns uprobe or ERR_PTR.
- void uprobe_unregister(inode, offset, consumer);
+ void uprobe_unregister(uprobe, consumer);
this way unregister() doesn't need the extra find_uprobe() + put_uprobe().
The same for uprobe_apply().
The necessary changes in kernel/trace/trace_uprobe.c are trivial, we just
need to change struct trace_uprobe
- struct inode *inode;
+ struct uprobe *uprobe;
and fix the compilation errors.
As for kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c, I guess struct bpf_uprobe needs the new
->uprobe member, we can't kill bpf_uprobe->offset because of
bpf_uprobe_multi_link_fill_link_info(), but I think this is not that bad.
What do you think?
Oleg.
