lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Apr]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC 0/6] uprobes: kill uprobes_srcu/uprobe_srcu_id
From
Date
On Mon, 2012-04-23 at 19:29 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 04/23, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2012-04-23 at 12:54 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > > * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> [2012-04-23 09:14:00]:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, 2012-04-20 at 20:37 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > > > Say, a user wants to probe /sbin/init only. What if init forks?
> > > > > We should remove breakpoints from child->mm somehow.
> > > >
> > > > How is that hard? dup_mmap() only copies the VMAs, this doesn't actually
> > > > copy the breakpoint. So the child doesn't have a breakpoint to be
> > > > removed.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Because the pages are COWED, the breakpoint gets copied over to the
> > > child. If we dont want the breakpoints to be not visible to the child,
> > > then we would have to remove them explicitly based on the filter (i.e if
> > > and if we had inserted breakpoints conditionally based on filter).
> >
> > I thought we didn't COW shared maps since the fault handler will fill in
> > the pages right and only anon stuff gets copied.
>
> Confused...
>
> Do you mean the "Don't copy ptes where a page fault will fill them correctly"
> check in copy_page_range() ? Yes, but this vma should have ->anon_vma != NULL
> if it has the breakpoint installed by uprobes.

Oh, argh yeah, we add an anon_vma there..

> > > Once we add the conditional breakpoint insertion (which is tricky),
> >
> > How so?
>
> I agree with Srikar this doesn't look simple to me. First of all,
> currently it is not easy to find the tasks which use this ->mm.
> OK, we can simply do for_each_process() under tasklist, but this is
> not very nice.
>
> But again, to me this is not the main problem.

CLONE_VM without CLONE_THREAD is the problem, right?

Can we get away with not supporting that, at least initially?

> > > Conditional removal
> > > of breakpoints in fork path would just be an extension of the
> > > conditional breakpoint insertion.
> >
> > Right, I don't think that removal is particularly hard if needed.
>
> I agree that remove_breakpoint() itself is not that hard, probably.
>
> But the whole idea of filtering is not clear to me. I mean, when/how
> we should call the filter, and what should be the argument.
> task_struct? Probably, but I am not sure.

Well, the idea is really very simple: if for a probe an {mm,tasks} set
has all negative filters we do not install the probe on that mm.

The filters already take a uprobe_consumer and task_struct as argument.

> And btw fork()->dup_mmap() should call the filter too. Suppose that
> uprobe_consumer wants to trace the task T and its children, this looks
> very natural.

Agreed.

> And we need to rework uprobe_register(). It can't simply return if
> this (inode, offset) already has the consumer.

Not quite sure what you mean. uprobe_register() doesn't have such a
return value. It returns 0 on success and an error otherwise. Do you
mean __uprobe_register() ? That calls register_for_each_vma() and that
can simply call ->filter() for each vma it iterates. In fact, it can get
away with only calling the filter for the new consumer.

> So far I think this needs more thinking. And imho we should merge the
> working code Srikar already has, then try to add this (agreed, very
> important) optimization.

Sure..




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-04-23 21:21    [W:0.106 / U:9.180 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site