On Fri, Jul 05, 2024 at 03:38:12PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > Agreed. BTW, even if the uprobe is removed, the ret_handler should be
> > called?
> > I think both 1 and 2 case, we should skip ret_handler.
>
> do you mean what happens when the uretprobe is installed and its consumer
> is unregiste
On Fri, Jul 05, 2024 at 09:10:36AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 03, 2024 at 01:36:19PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> > Yes, please use struct_size_t(). This is exactly what it was designed for.
>
> Kees, please, just let up, not going to happen. I'm getting really fed
> up having to e
On Fri, Jul 05, 2024 at 05:35:44PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
SNIP
> > > > > Also, if we can set session enabled by default, and skip ret_handler
> > > > > by handler's
> > > > > return value, it is more simpler. (If handler returns a specific
> > > > > value, skip ret_handler)
> > > >
> >
On Wed, Jul 03, 2024 at 02:48:28PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2024 at 10:13 AM Jiri Olsa wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 01:51:28PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> >
> > SNIP
> >
> > > > #ifdef CONFIG_UPROBES
> > > > @@ -80,6 +83,12 @@ struct uprobe_task {
> > > >
On Wed, 3 Jul 2024 14:43:27 -0700
Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2024 at 9:09 AM Jiri Olsa wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 05:13:38PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 4:55 PM Masami Hiramatsu
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Jiri,
> > > >
> > > > On Mon
On Wed, Jul 03, 2024 at 01:36:19PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> Yes, please use struct_size_t(). This is exactly what it was designed for.
Kees, please, just let up, not going to happen. I'm getting really fed
up having to endlessly repeat what a piece of shite struct_size() is.
Put your time and e
On Wed, Jul 3, 2024 at 10:13 AM Jiri Olsa wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 01:51:28PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
> > > #ifdef CONFIG_UPROBES
> > > @@ -80,6 +83,12 @@ struct uprobe_task {
> > > unsigned intdepth;
> > > };
> > >
> > > +struct session_con
On Wed, Jul 3, 2024 at 9:09 AM Jiri Olsa wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 05:13:38PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 4:55 PM Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Jiri,
> > >
> > > On Mon, 1 Jul 2024 18:41:07 +0200
> > > Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > >
> > > > Adding support
On Wed, Jul 3, 2024 at 8:31 AM Jiri Olsa wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 01:52:38PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 9:11 AM Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 03:04:08PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 06:41:07PM +0200, Ji
On Wed, Jul 03, 2024 at 11:31:11AM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2024 at 1:10 AM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 01:51:28PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > > > +static size_t ri_size(int sessions_cnt)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct return_instance *ri __
On Wed, Jul 3, 2024 at 1:10 AM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 01:51:28PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > > +static size_t ri_size(int sessions_cnt)
> > > +{
> > > + struct return_instance *ri __maybe_unused;
> > > +
> > > + return sizeof(*ri) + sessions_cnt * sizeo
On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 01:51:28PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
SNIP
> > #ifdef CONFIG_UPROBES
> > @@ -80,6 +83,12 @@ struct uprobe_task {
> > unsigned intdepth;
> > };
> >
> > +struct session_consumer {
> > + __u64 cookie;
> > + unsigned int
On Wed, Jul 03, 2024 at 05:31:32PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 01:52:38PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 9:11 AM Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 03:04:08PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 06:41:07PM +
On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 05:13:38PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 4:55 PM Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> >
> > Hi Jiri,
> >
> > On Mon, 1 Jul 2024 18:41:07 +0200
> > Jiri Olsa wrote:
> >
> > > Adding support for uprobe consumer to be defined as session and have
> > > new behav
On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 01:52:38PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 9:11 AM Jiri Olsa wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 03:04:08PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 06:41:07PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > >
> > > > +static void
> > > > +uprobe_con
On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 01:51:28PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > +static size_t ri_size(int sessions_cnt)
> > +{
> > + struct return_instance *ri __maybe_unused;
> > +
> > + return sizeof(*ri) + sessions_cnt * sizeof(ri->sessions[0]);
>
> just use struct_size()?
Yeah, lets not. Th
On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 4:55 PM Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>
> Hi Jiri,
>
> On Mon, 1 Jul 2024 18:41:07 +0200
> Jiri Olsa wrote:
>
> > Adding support for uprobe consumer to be defined as session and have
> > new behaviour for consumer's 'handler' and 'ret_handler' callbacks.
> >
> > The session mean
Hi Jiri,
On Mon, 1 Jul 2024 18:41:07 +0200
Jiri Olsa wrote:
> Adding support for uprobe consumer to be defined as session and have
> new behaviour for consumer's 'handler' and 'ret_handler' callbacks.
>
> The session means that 'handler' and 'ret_handler' callbacks are
> connected in a way tha
On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 9:11 AM Jiri Olsa wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 03:04:08PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 06:41:07PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> >
> > > +static void
> > > +uprobe_consumer_account(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct uprobe_consumer
> > > *uc)
> > > +
On Mon, Jul 1, 2024 at 9:41 AM Jiri Olsa wrote:
>
> Adding support for uprobe consumer to be defined as session and have
> new behaviour for consumer's 'handler' and 'ret_handler' callbacks.
>
> The session means that 'handler' and 'ret_handler' callbacks are
> connected in a way that allows to:
>
On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 03:04:08PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 06:41:07PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
>
> > +static void
> > +uprobe_consumer_account(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct uprobe_consumer *uc)
> > +{
> > + static unsigned int session_id;
> > +
> > + if (uc->sessi
On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 06:41:07PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> +static void
> +uprobe_consumer_account(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct uprobe_consumer *uc)
> +{
> + static unsigned int session_id;
> +
> + if (uc->session) {
> + uprobe->sessions_cnt++;
> + uc->session_id
Adding support for uprobe consumer to be defined as session and have
new behaviour for consumer's 'handler' and 'ret_handler' callbacks.
The session means that 'handler' and 'ret_handler' callbacks are
connected in a way that allows to:
- control execution of 'ret_handler' from 'handler' callba
23 matches
Mail list logo