Re: [PATCH 3/3] uprobes: make uprobe_register() return struct uprobe *

[Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>]

On 07/10, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 9:33 AM Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > This way uprobe_unregister() and uprobe_apply() do not need find_uprobe() +
> > put_uprobe(). And to me this change simplifies the code a bit.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/uprobes.h     | 14 ++++++------
> >  kernel/events/uprobes.c     | 45 ++++++++++++-------------------------
> >  kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c    | 12 +++++-----
> >  kernel/trace/trace_uprobe.c | 28 +++++++++++------------
> >  4 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 58 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/uprobes.h b/include/linux/uprobes.h
> > index aa89a8b67039..399509befcf4 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/uprobes.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/uprobes.h
>
> I don't see struct uprobe forward-declared in this header, maybe we
> should add it?

Probably yes, thanks... Although the current code already uses
struct uprobes * without forward-declaration at least if CONFIG_UPROBES=y.
Thanks, will add.

> >  static inline int
> > -uprobe_apply(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset, struct uprobe_consumer *uc, bool add)
> > +uprobe_apply(struct uprobe* uprobe, struct uprobe_consumer *uc, bool add)
> >  {
> >         return -ENOSYS;
> >  }
>
> complete aside, when I was looking at this code I was wondering why we
> even need uprobe_apply, it looks like some hacky variant of
> uprobe_register and uprobe_unregister.

All I can say is that

	- I can hardly recall this logic, I'll try to do this tomorrow
	  and write another email

	- in any case this logic is ugly and needs more cleanups

	- but this patch only tries to simplify this code without any
	  visible changes.

> > @@ -1133,41 +1126,39 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(uprobe_unregister);
> >   * refcount is released when the last @uc for the @uprobe
> >   * unregisters. Caller of uprobe_register() is required to keep @inode
> >   * (and the containing mount) referenced.
> > - *
> > - * Return errno if it cannot successully install probes
> > - * else return 0 (success)
>
> mention that it never returns NULL, but rather encodes error code
> inside the pointer on error? It's an important part of the contract.

OK...

> >  /*
>
> this should be /** for doccomment checking (you'd get a warning for
> missing @uprobe if there was this extra star)

Well, this is what we have before this patch, but OK

> >   * uprobe_apply - unregister an already registered probe.
> > - * @inode: the file in which the probe has to be removed.
> > - * @offset: offset from the start of the file.
>
> add @uprobe description now?

If only I knew what this @uprobe description can say ;)

> > @@ -3180,10 +3181,8 @@ static void bpf_uprobe_unregister(struct path *path, struct bpf_uprobe *uprobes,
> >  {
> >         u32 i;
> >
> > -       for (i = 0; i < cnt; i++) {
> > -               uprobe_unregister(d_real_inode(path->dentry), uprobes[i].offset,
> > -                                 &uprobes[i].consumer);
> > -       }
> > +       for (i = 0; i < cnt; i++)
>
> you'll now need !IS_ERR_OR_NULL(uprobes[i].uprobe) check (or just NULL
> check if you null-out it below)

Hmm... are you sure? I'll re-check... See also the end of my email.

> > @@ -3477,11 +3476,12 @@ int bpf_uprobe_multi_link_attach(const union bpf_attr *attr, struct bpf_prog *pr
> >                       &bpf_uprobe_multi_link_lops, prog);
> >
> >         for (i = 0; i < cnt; i++) {
> > -               err = uprobe_register(d_real_inode(link->path.dentry),
> > +               uprobes[i].uprobe = uprobe_register(d_real_inode(link->path.dentry),
>
> will uprobe keep inode alive as long as uprobe is attached?

Why? No, this patch doesn't (shouldn't) change the current behaviour.

The users still need kern_path/path_put to, say, prevent umount.

> we can NULL-out uprobe on error for bpf_uprobe_unregister() to handle
> only NULL vs non-NULL case

Not sure I understand...

> or maybe better yet let's just have local struct uprobe variable and
> only assign it if registration succeeded

We can, but

> (still need NULL check in
> bpf_uprobe_unregister above)

Why?

If bpf_uprobe_unregister() is called by bpf_uprobe_multi_link_attach() on
error, it passes cnt = i where is the 1st failed uprobe index. IOW,
uptobes[i].uprobe can't be IS_ERR_OR_NULL() in the 0..cnt-1 range.

If it is called by bpf_uprobe_multi_link_release() then the whole
0..umulti_link->cnt-1 range should be fine?

Oleg.