Re: [PATCH v8 5/6] trace_uprobe/sdt: Prevent multiple reference counter for same uprobe

2018-08-13 Thread Song Liu
On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 1:49 AM, Srikar Dronamraju
 wrote:
> * Ravi Bangoria  [2018-08-13 13:49:44]:
>
>> Hi Song,
>>
>> On 08/11/2018 01:42 PM, Song Liu wrote:
>> > Do we really need this given we already have PATCH 4/6?
>> > uprobe_regsiter() can be called
>> > out of trace_uprobe, this patch won't catch all conflicts anyway.
>>
>> Right but it, at least, catch all conflicts happening via trace_uprobe.
>>
>> I don't mind in removing this patch but I would like to get an opinion of
>> Oleg/Srikar/Steven/Masami.
>>
>
> I would suggest to keep it, atleast it can ctah conflicts happening via
> trace_uprobe.
>

Yeah, that makes sense.

Reviewed-by: Song Liu 


Re: [PATCH v8 5/6] trace_uprobe/sdt: Prevent multiple reference counter for same uprobe

2018-08-13 Thread Srikar Dronamraju
* Ravi Bangoria  [2018-08-13 13:49:44]:

> Hi Song,
> 
> On 08/11/2018 01:42 PM, Song Liu wrote:
> > Do we really need this given we already have PATCH 4/6?
> > uprobe_regsiter() can be called
> > out of trace_uprobe, this patch won't catch all conflicts anyway.
> 
> Right but it, at least, catch all conflicts happening via trace_uprobe.
> 
> I don't mind in removing this patch but I would like to get an opinion of
> Oleg/Srikar/Steven/Masami.
> 

I would suggest to keep it, atleast it can ctah conflicts happening via
trace_uprobe.



Re: [PATCH v8 5/6] trace_uprobe/sdt: Prevent multiple reference counter for same uprobe

2018-08-13 Thread Srikar Dronamraju
* Ravi Bangoria  [2018-08-09 09:48:55]:

> We assume to have only one reference counter for one uprobe.
> Don't allow user to add multiple trace_uprobe entries having
> same inode+offset but different reference counter.
> 
> Ex,
>   # echo "p:sdt_tick/loop2 /home/ravi/tick:0x6e4(0x10036)" > uprobe_events
>   # echo "p:sdt_tick/loop2_1 /home/ravi/tick:0x6e4(0xf)" >> uprobe_events
>   bash: echo: write error: Invalid argument
> 
>   # dmesg
>   trace_kprobe: Reference counter offset mismatch.
> 
> There is one exception though:
> When user is trying to replace the old entry with the new
> one, we allow this if the new entry does not conflict with
> any other existing entries.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ravi Bangoria 
> ---

Looks good to me.

Acked-by: Srikar Dronamraju 



Re: [PATCH v8 5/6] trace_uprobe/sdt: Prevent multiple reference counter for same uprobe

2018-08-13 Thread Ravi Bangoria
Hi Song,

On 08/11/2018 01:42 PM, Song Liu wrote:
> Do we really need this given we already have PATCH 4/6?
> uprobe_regsiter() can be called
> out of trace_uprobe, this patch won't catch all conflicts anyway.

Right but it, at least, catch all conflicts happening via trace_uprobe.

I don't mind in removing this patch but I would like to get an opinion of
Oleg/Srikar/Steven/Masami.

Thanks,
Ravi



Re: [PATCH v8 5/6] trace_uprobe/sdt: Prevent multiple reference counter for same uprobe

2018-08-11 Thread Song Liu
Do we really need this given we already have PATCH 4/6?
uprobe_regsiter() can be called
out of trace_uprobe, this patch won't catch all conflicts anyway.

Song

On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 9:18 PM, Ravi Bangoria
 wrote:
> We assume to have only one reference counter for one uprobe.
> Don't allow user to add multiple trace_uprobe entries having
> same inode+offset but different reference counter.
>
> Ex,
>   # echo "p:sdt_tick/loop2 /home/ravi/tick:0x6e4(0x10036)" > uprobe_events
>   # echo "p:sdt_tick/loop2_1 /home/ravi/tick:0x6e4(0xf)" >> uprobe_events
>   bash: echo: write error: Invalid argument
>
>   # dmesg
>   trace_kprobe: Reference counter offset mismatch.
>
> There is one exception though:
> When user is trying to replace the old entry with the new
> one, we allow this if the new entry does not conflict with
> any other existing entries.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ravi Bangoria 
> ---
>  kernel/trace/trace_uprobe.c | 37 +++--
>  1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_uprobe.c b/kernel/trace/trace_uprobe.c
> index bf2be098eb08..be64d943d7ea 100644
> --- a/kernel/trace/trace_uprobe.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_uprobe.c
> @@ -324,6 +324,35 @@ static int unregister_trace_uprobe(struct trace_uprobe 
> *tu)
> return 0;
>  }
>
> +/*
> + * Uprobe with multiple reference counter is not allowed. i.e.
> + * If inode and offset matches, reference counter offset *must*
> + * match as well. Though, there is one exception: If user is
> + * replacing old trace_uprobe with new one(same group/event),
> + * then we allow same uprobe with new reference counter as far
> + * as the new one does not conflict with any other existing
> + * ones.
> + */
> +static struct trace_uprobe *find_old_trace_uprobe(struct trace_uprobe *new)
> +{
> +   struct trace_uprobe *tmp, *old = NULL;
> +   struct inode *new_inode = d_real_inode(new->path.dentry);
> +
> +   old = find_probe_event(trace_event_name(&new->tp.call),
> +   new->tp.call.class->system);
> +
> +   list_for_each_entry(tmp, &uprobe_list, list) {
> +   if ((old ? old != tmp : true) &&
> +   new_inode == d_real_inode(tmp->path.dentry) &&
> +   new->offset == tmp->offset &&
> +   new->ref_ctr_offset != tmp->ref_ctr_offset) {
> +   pr_warn("Reference counter offset mismatch.");
> +   return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> +   }
> +   }
> +   return old;
> +}
> +
>  /* Register a trace_uprobe and probe_event */
>  static int register_trace_uprobe(struct trace_uprobe *tu)
>  {
> @@ -333,8 +362,12 @@ static int register_trace_uprobe(struct trace_uprobe *tu)
> mutex_lock(&uprobe_lock);
>
> /* register as an event */
> -   old_tu = find_probe_event(trace_event_name(&tu->tp.call),
> -   tu->tp.call.class->system);
> +   old_tu = find_old_trace_uprobe(tu);
> +   if (IS_ERR(old_tu)) {
> +   ret = PTR_ERR(old_tu);
> +   goto end;
> +   }
> +
> if (old_tu) {
> /* delete old event */
> ret = unregister_trace_uprobe(old_tu);
> --
> 2.14.4
>