On 09/04, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2025 at 8:02 AM Alexei Starovoitov
> <alexei.starovoi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 4, 2025 at 4:26 AM Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 09/04, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ok, got excited too soon.. so you meant getting rid of is_unique
> > > > check only for this patch and have just change below.. but keep
> > > > the unique/exclusive flag from patch#1
> > >
> > > Yes, this is what I meant,
> > >
> > > > IIUC Andrii would remove the unique flag completely?
> > >
> > > Lets wait for Andrii...
> >
> > Not Andrii, but I see only negatives in this extra flag.
> > It doesn't add any safety or guardrails.
> > No need to pollute uapi with pointless flags.
>
> +1. I think it's fine to just have something like
>
> if (unlikely(instruction_pointer(regs) != bp_vaddr))
> goto out;
>
> after all uprobe callbacks were processed. Even if every single one of
> them modify IP, the last one that did that wins.
OK. If any consumer can change regs->ip, then I can only repeat:
Yes... but what if we there are multiple consumers? The 1st one changes
instruction_pointer, the next is unaware. Or it may change regs->ip
too...
> Others (if they care)
> can detect this.
How? If the the consumer which changes regs->ip is not the 1st one?
That said. If you guys don't see a problem - I won't even try to argue.
As I said many times, I have no idea how people actually use uprobes ;)
Oleg.
