linux-perf-users.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
	Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>, Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>,
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
	"Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>,
	Tong Tiangen <tongtiangen@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next v1 3/3] kernel/events/uprobes: uprobe_write_opcode() rewrite
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2025 18:03:21 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250310170320.GC26382@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250304154846.1937958-4-david@redhat.com>

On 03/04, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
> uprobe_write_opcode() does some pretty low-level things that really, it
> shouldn't be doing:

Agreed. Thanks again for doing this.

David, as I said, I can't review. I don't understand this mm/folio magic
with or without your changes.

However. With your changes the code looks "better" and more understandable
to me. So I'd vote for your patches even if I can't ack them.

But I'd like to ask some stupid (no, really) questions.
__uprobe_write_opcode() does:

	/* We're done if we don't find an anonymous folio when unregistering. */
	if (!folio_test_anon(folio))
		return is_register ? -EFAULT : 0;

Yes, but we do not expect !folio_test_anon() if register == true, right?
See also below.

	/* Verify that the page content is still as expected. */
	if (verify_opcode(fw->page, opcode_vaddr, &opcode) <= 0) {
		set_pte_at(vma->vm_mm, vaddr, fw->ptep, fw->pte);
		return -EAGAIN;
	}

The caller, uprobe_write_opcode(), has already called verify_opcode(),
why do we need to re-check?

But whatever reason we have. Can we change uprobe_write_opcode() to
"delay" put_page() and instead of

	/* Walk the page tables again, to perform the actual update. */
	folio = folio_walk_start(&fw, vma, vaddr, 0);
	if (folio) {
		ret = __uprobe_write_opcode(vma, &fw, folio, opcode_vaddr,
					    opcode);
		folio_walk_end(&fw, vma);
	} else {
		ret = -EAGAIN;
	}

do something like

	/* Walk the page tables again, to perform the actual update. */
	ret = -EAGAIN;
	folio = folio_walk_start(&fw, vma, vaddr, 0);
	if (folio) {
		if (fw.page == page) {
			WARN_ON(is_register && !folio_test_anon(folio));
			ret = __uprobe_write_opcode(vma, &fw, folio, opcode_vaddr,
					            opcode);
		}
		folio_walk_end(&fw, vma);
	}

?

Once again, I am not trying to review. I am trying to understand the
basics of your code.

Thanks,

Oleg.


  parent reply	other threads:[~2025-03-10 17:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-03-04 15:48 [PATCH -next v1 0/3] kernel/events/uprobes: uprobe_write_opcode() rewrite David Hildenbrand
2025-03-04 15:48 ` [PATCH -next v1 1/3] kernel/events/uprobes: pass VMA instead of MM to remove_breakpoint() David Hildenbrand
2025-03-04 15:48 ` [PATCH -next v1 2/3] kernel/events/uprobes: pass VMA to set_swbp(), set_orig_insn() and uprobe_write_opcode() David Hildenbrand
2025-03-04 15:48 ` [PATCH -next v1 3/3] kernel/events/uprobes: uprobe_write_opcode() rewrite David Hildenbrand
2025-03-05 19:30   ` Matthew Wilcox
2025-03-05 19:37     ` David Hildenbrand
2025-03-10 17:03   ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2025-03-11  9:54     ` David Hildenbrand
2025-03-11 12:32       ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-03-11 20:02         ` David Hildenbrand
2025-03-05 15:20 ` [PATCH -next v1 0/3] " Oleg Nesterov
2025-03-05 19:43   ` Andrii Nakryiko
2025-03-05 19:47     ` David Hildenbrand
2025-03-05 19:58       ` Andrii Nakryiko
2025-03-05 20:53         ` David Hildenbrand

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20250310170320.GC26382@redhat.com \
    --to=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=acme@kernel.org \
    --cc=adrian.hunter@intel.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=david@redhat.com \
    --cc=irogers@google.com \
    --cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
    --cc=kan.liang@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=mhiramat@kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=tongtiangen@huawei.com \
    --cc=willy@infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).