(2013/06/28 13:17), Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> (2013/06/28 1:27), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> On 06/27, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
>>>
>>> * zhangwei(Jovi) <jovi.zhang...@huawei.com> [2013-06-25 11:30:20]:
>>>> + if (!enabled) {
>>>> + tu->consumer.filter = filter;
>>>> + ret = uprobe_register(tu->inode, tu->offset, &tu->consumer);
>>>> + if (ret)
>>>> + tu->flags &= file ? ~TP_FLAG_TRACE : ~TP_FLAG_PROFILE;
>>>
>>> Dont we need to free link here? or where does the link that got
>>> allocated freed?
>>
>> Agreed...
>>
>> Masami, it seems that (just in case, with or without "Turn trace_probe->files
>> into list_head" I sent) trace_kpobes needs the similar fix too? Plus it
>> should
>> clear TP_FLAG_* if enable_k.*probe() fails.
>
> Oops, right! this problem also happens on the latest kernel. I must fix that
> before introducing list_head...
>
>> Or enable_trace_probe() assumes that enable_kprobe() must succeed? In this
>> case probably WARN_ON(ret) makes sense.
>
> In the case of probing a module function, the event can be gone when the
> module is unloaded. At that time, enable_trace_probe must fails.
Hmm, I've looked into it carefully, and found that the enable_kprobe() must
succeed
because the enable_trace_probe() invokes it after checking the failure
conditions
(kprobe is registered and not gone). But anyway, that depends on the current
implementation. I think we need both of WARN_ON() and writeback.
Thank you,
--
Masami HIRAMATSU
IT Management Research Dept. Linux Technology Center
Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory
E-mail: masami.hiramatsu...@hitachi.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
