From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0912B18C004 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2024 21:13:03 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1724965985; cv=none; b=dgQArT26E0B/BoDRp37BKi8GgzoiR1mphetoKGBy77v4Yf5o33pAcjaS7rOZAgbn/WS40qhMX0BI+F+v09JZGronTE5eRTkPRueBGcklzg452au8eMsocjeEse/PDN+nT4UPDRxtCZgGW5FshJfnEfzQhZy2vo+TCU4XsGccO00= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1724965985; c=relaxed/simple; bh=MqUh56zN7NJNdjmghT/euStrp6pZZ7zbmVkxBqupF34=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=ajxaAOMRYjPjvBaX54zinqdE+dETSRPQDzcwjme+I4XP0oodATgBWt8uRgmBs+jPMzF7DB+J82jjd5KkOYLLxvCZ3MtiyddruIGVuch4E+e+vy7u11YJ3Af9anCEq96nUH932cGR3LU5PI5gvkVW4yDCpDxUF38q1ugd+ezFpEo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=Gb99zOJT; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="Gb99zOJT" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1724965983; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=uV8YErksJWOCHNNkf7up1j+SAnFhOu+hNSyWOYIg8QY=; b=Gb99zOJTcOrYJuX2NNHeIbB8VqKYSzBhuzCnzz2so5iiqP0K19l9R/bX4gghDvqCCcqTK1 IBJ8bF8LBQ7ETRXqV0o44XfIoDyriTGvw0Kb29pzUuTRyagGDBW30f+zOIFwI4fUtEnOOu OoEp4++Q54KLcLMhZ1w3QNtf7xkxZ7I= Received: from mx-prod-mc-04.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-54-186-198-63.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [54.186.198.63]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-507-SLQD5WZoNPqQH_1vwF2sEA-1; Thu, 29 Aug 2024 17:12:57 -0400 X-MC-Unique: SLQD5WZoNPqQH_1vwF2sEA-1 Received: from mx-prod-int-04.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-04.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.40]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-04.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E81C19560B0; Thu, 29 Aug 2024 21:12:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dhcp-27-174.brq.redhat.com (unknown [10.45.224.20]) by mx-prod-int-04.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 5F71F19560A3; Thu, 29 Aug 2024 21:12:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: by dhcp-27-174.brq.redhat.com (nbSMTP-1.00) for uid 1000 oleg@redhat.com; Thu, 29 Aug 2024 23:12:46 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2024 23:12:41 +0200 From: Oleg Nesterov To: Jiri Olsa Cc: Tianyi Liu , andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com, mhiramat@kernel.org, ajor@meta.com, albancrequy@linux.microsoft.com, bpf@vger.kernel.org, flaniel@linux.microsoft.com, linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux@jordanrome.com, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tracing/uprobe: Add missing PID filter for uretprobe Message-ID: <20240829211241.GA19243@redhat.com> References: <20240826115752.GA21268@redhat.com> <20240826212552.GB30765@redhat.com> <20240826222938.GC30765@redhat.com> <20240827201926.GA15197@redhat.com> <20240829152032.GA23996@redhat.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.0 on 10.30.177.40 Ah. we certainly misunderstand each other. On 08/29, Jiri Olsa wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 05:20:33PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > SNIP SNIP > right.. if the event is not added by perf_trace_add on this cpu > it won't go pass this point, so no problem for perf Yes, and this is what I tried to verify. In your previous email you said and I think the same will happen for perf record in this case where instead of running the program we will execute perf_tp_event and I tried verify this can't happen. So no problem for perf ;) > but the issue is with bpf program triggered earlier by return uprobe Well, the issue with bpf program (with the bpf_prog_array_valid(call) code in __uprobe_perf_func) was clear from the very beginning, no questions. > and [1] patch seems to fix that I'd say this patch fixes the symptoms, and it doesn't fix all the problems. But I can't suggest anything better for bpf code, so I won't really argue. However the changelog and even the subject is wrong. > I sent out the bpf selftest that triggers the issue [2] Thanks, I'll try take a look tomorrow. Oleg.