On Fri, Jul 31, 2026 at 09:56:52AM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 12:38:24 +0200 > Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 30, 2026 at 08:54:21AM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > > > On Wed, 29 Jul 2026 12:31:08 -0700 > > > Andrii Nakryiko <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 9:02 AM Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 07/29, Breno Leitao wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- a/kernel/events/uprobes.c > > > > > > +++ b/kernel/events/uprobes.c > > > > > > @@ -832,7 +832,7 @@ static struct uprobe *hprobe_expire(struct > > > > > > hprobe *hprobe, bool get) > > > > > > if (try_cmpxchg(&hprobe->state, &hstate, uprobe ? > > > > > > HPROBE_STABLE : HPROBE_GONE)) { > > > > > > /* We won the race, we are the ones to unlock > > > > > > SRCU */ > > > > > > __srcu_read_unlock(&uretprobes_srcu, > > > > > > hprobe->srcu_idx); > > > > > > - return get ? get_uprobe(uprobe) : uprobe; > > > > > > + return get && uprobe ? get_uprobe(uprobe) : > > > > > > uprobe; > > > > > > > > > > Well, looks "obviously correct". At least the current code is > > > > > obviously > > > > > wrong, it even checks uprobe != NULL 3 lines above. > > > > > > > > > > Andrii ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, indeed, I'm more surprised this didn't come up much earlier > > > > (probably it's rare enough to have uretprobe with refcnt at zero > > > > during fork). The fix looks good, thanks! > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, this seems good to me. (uprobe is NULL checked in try_cmpxchg(), > > > so it could be NULL.) > > > > > > Can I pick this to probes/fixes branch? > > > > tip/perf/urgent ? > > Either way works. Can we update MAINTAINERS file if you will maintain > uprobe in tip tree?
Well it is in kernel/events/ which MAINTAINERS should already assign to me, no?
