[PATCH 0/3] uprobes: future cleanups for review

[PATCH 0/3] uprobes: future cleanups for review

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 07/10, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> Peter, these simple cleanups should not conflict with your changes,
> but I can resend them later if it causes any inconvenience.

In fact I would like to push 2 more cleanups before the more significant
changes, but they certainly conflict with your ongoing work, albeit only
textually.

Let me send the patches for review anyway, perhaps you can take at least
the 1st one.

3/3 is only compile tested so far. Andrii, can you take a look?

Oleg.

[PATCH 1/3] uprobes: kill uprobe_register_refctr()

[Oleg Nesterov]

It doesn't make any sense to have 2 versions of _register(). Note that
trace_uprobe_enable(), the only user of uprobe_register(), doesn't need
to check tu->ref_ctr_offset to decide which one should be used, it could
safely pass ref_ctr_offset == 0 to uprobe_register_refctr().

Add this argument to uprobe_register(), update the callers, and kill
uprobe_register_refctr().

Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
---
 include/linux/uprobes.h     |  9 ++-------
 kernel/events/uprobes.c     | 23 +++++------------------
 kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c    |  2 +-
 kernel/trace/trace_uprobe.c |  8 ++------
 4 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/uprobes.h b/include/linux/uprobes.h
index f46e0ca0169c..aa89a8b67039 100644
--- a/include/linux/uprobes.h
+++ b/include/linux/uprobes.h
@@ -110,8 +110,7 @@ extern bool is_trap_insn(uprobe_opcode_t *insn);
 extern unsigned long uprobe_get_swbp_addr(struct pt_regs *regs);
 extern unsigned long uprobe_get_trap_addr(struct pt_regs *regs);
 extern int uprobe_write_opcode(struct arch_uprobe *auprobe, struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long vaddr, uprobe_opcode_t);
-extern int uprobe_register(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset, struct uprobe_consumer *uc);
-extern int uprobe_register_refctr(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset, loff_t ref_ctr_offset, struct uprobe_consumer *uc);
+extern int uprobe_register(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset, loff_t ref_ctr_offset, struct uprobe_consumer *uc);
 extern int uprobe_apply(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset, struct uprobe_consumer *uc, bool);
 extern void uprobe_unregister(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset, struct uprobe_consumer *uc);
 extern int uprobe_mmap(struct vm_area_struct *vma);
@@ -149,11 +148,7 @@ static inline void uprobes_init(void)
 #define uprobe_get_trap_addr(regs)	instruction_pointer(regs)
 
 static inline int
-uprobe_register(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset, struct uprobe_consumer *uc)
-{
-	return -ENOSYS;
-}
-static inline int uprobe_register_refctr(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset, loff_t ref_ctr_offset, struct uprobe_consumer *uc)
+uprobe_register(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset, loff_t ref_ctr_offset, struct uprobe_consumer *uc)
 {
 	return -ENOSYS;
 }
diff --git a/kernel/events/uprobes.c b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
index 1bdf386485d4..4950decebe5c 100644
--- a/kernel/events/uprobes.c
+++ b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
@@ -1120,25 +1120,25 @@ void uprobe_unregister(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset, struct uprobe_consume
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(uprobe_unregister);
 
 /*
- * __uprobe_register - register a probe
+ * uprobe_register - register a probe
  * @inode: the file in which the probe has to be placed.
  * @offset: offset from the start of the file.
  * @uc: information on howto handle the probe..
  *
- * Apart from the access refcount, __uprobe_register() takes a creation
+ * Apart from the access refcount, uprobe_register() takes a creation
  * refcount (thro alloc_uprobe) if and only if this @uprobe is getting
  * inserted into the rbtree (i.e first consumer for a @inode:@offset
  * tuple).  Creation refcount stops uprobe_unregister from freeing the
  * @uprobe even before the register operation is complete. Creation
  * refcount is released when the last @uc for the @uprobe
- * unregisters. Caller of __uprobe_register() is required to keep @inode
+ * 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)
  */
-static int __uprobe_register(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset,
-			     loff_t ref_ctr_offset, struct uprobe_consumer *uc)
+int uprobe_register(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset, loff_t ref_ctr_offset,
+		    struct uprobe_consumer *uc)
 {
 	struct uprobe *uprobe;
 	int ret;
@@ -1190,21 +1190,8 @@ static int __uprobe_register(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset,
 		goto retry;
 	return ret;
 }
-
-int uprobe_register(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset,
-		    struct uprobe_consumer *uc)
-{
-	return __uprobe_register(inode, offset, 0, uc);
-}
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(uprobe_register);
 
-int uprobe_register_refctr(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset,
-			   loff_t ref_ctr_offset, struct uprobe_consumer *uc)
-{
-	return __uprobe_register(inode, offset, ref_ctr_offset, uc);
-}
-EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(uprobe_register_refctr);
-
 /*
  * uprobe_apply - unregister an already registered probe.
  * @inode: the file in which the probe has to be removed.
diff --git a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
index d1daeab1bbc1..467f358c8ce7 100644
--- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
+++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
@@ -3477,7 +3477,7 @@ 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_refctr(d_real_inode(link->path.dentry),
+		err = uprobe_register(d_real_inode(link->path.dentry),
 					     uprobes[i].offset,
 					     uprobes[i].ref_ctr_offset,
 					     &uprobes[i].consumer);
diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_uprobe.c b/kernel/trace/trace_uprobe.c
index c98e3b3386ba..78a5c40e885a 100644
--- a/kernel/trace/trace_uprobe.c
+++ b/kernel/trace/trace_uprobe.c
@@ -1089,12 +1089,8 @@ static int trace_uprobe_enable(struct trace_uprobe *tu, filter_func_t filter)
 	tu->consumer.filter = filter;
 	tu->inode = d_real_inode(tu->path.dentry);
 
-	if (tu->ref_ctr_offset)
-		ret = uprobe_register_refctr(tu->inode, tu->offset,
-				tu->ref_ctr_offset, &tu->consumer);
-	else
-		ret = uprobe_register(tu->inode, tu->offset, &tu->consumer);
-
+	ret = uprobe_register(tu->inode, tu->offset, tu->ref_ctr_offset,
+			      &tu->consumer);
 	if (ret)
 		tu->inode = NULL;
 
-- 
2.25.1.362.g51ebf55

Re: [PATCH 1/3] uprobes: kill uprobe_register_refctr()

[Andrii Nakryiko]

On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 9:32 AM Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> It doesn't make any sense to have 2 versions of _register(). Note that
> trace_uprobe_enable(), the only user of uprobe_register(), doesn't need
> to check tu->ref_ctr_offset to decide which one should be used, it could
> safely pass ref_ctr_offset == 0 to uprobe_register_refctr().
>
> Add this argument to uprobe_register(), update the callers, and kill
> uprobe_register_refctr().
>
> Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/uprobes.h     |  9 ++-------
>  kernel/events/uprobes.c     | 23 +++++------------------
>  kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c    |  2 +-
>  kernel/trace/trace_uprobe.c |  8 ++------
>  4 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
>

LGTM with few nits below.

Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>

>  /*
>   * uprobe_apply - unregister an already registered probe.
>   * @inode: the file in which the probe has to be removed.
> diff --git a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> index d1daeab1bbc1..467f358c8ce7 100644
> --- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> @@ -3477,7 +3477,7 @@ 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_refctr(d_real_inode(link->path.dentry),
> +               err = uprobe_register(d_real_inode(link->path.dentry),
>                                              uprobes[i].offset,
>                                              uprobes[i].ref_ctr_offset,
>                                              &uprobes[i].consumer);

please adjust indentation here

> diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_uprobe.c b/kernel/trace/trace_uprobe.c
> index c98e3b3386ba..78a5c40e885a 100644
> --- a/kernel/trace/trace_uprobe.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_uprobe.c
> @@ -1089,12 +1089,8 @@ static int trace_uprobe_enable(struct trace_uprobe *tu, filter_func_t filter)
>         tu->consumer.filter = filter;
>         tu->inode = d_real_inode(tu->path.dentry);
>
> -       if (tu->ref_ctr_offset)
> -               ret = uprobe_register_refctr(tu->inode, tu->offset,
> -                               tu->ref_ctr_offset, &tu->consumer);
> -       else
> -               ret = uprobe_register(tu->inode, tu->offset, &tu->consumer);
> -
> +       ret = uprobe_register(tu->inode, tu->offset, tu->ref_ctr_offset,
> +                             &tu->consumer);

doesn't fit under 100 characters? If it does, please keep as a single line.

>         if (ret)
>                 tu->inode = NULL;
>
> --
> 2.25.1.362.g51ebf55
>
>

Re: [PATCH 1/3] uprobes: kill uprobe_register_refctr()

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 07/10, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>
> LGTM with few nits below.
>
> Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>

Thanks for looking at this.

> > @@ -3477,7 +3477,7 @@ 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_refctr(d_real_inode(link->path.dentry),
> > +               err = uprobe_register(d_real_inode(link->path.dentry),
> >                                              uprobes[i].offset,
> >                                              uprobes[i].ref_ctr_offset,
> >                                              &uprobes[i].consumer);
>
> please adjust indentation here

OK,

> > -       if (tu->ref_ctr_offset)
> > -               ret = uprobe_register_refctr(tu->inode, tu->offset,
> > -                               tu->ref_ctr_offset, &tu->consumer);
> > -       else
> > -               ret = uprobe_register(tu->inode, tu->offset, &tu->consumer);
> > -
> > +       ret = uprobe_register(tu->inode, tu->offset, tu->ref_ctr_offset,
> > +                             &tu->consumer);
>
> doesn't fit under 100 characters? If it does, please keep as a single line.

OK, will do.

Oleg.

[PATCH 2/3] uprobes: simplify error handling for alloc_uprobe()

[Oleg Nesterov]

From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>

Return -ENOMEM instead of NULL, which makes caller's error handling just
a touch simpler.

Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
---
 kernel/events/uprobes.c | 4 +---
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/events/uprobes.c b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
index 4950decebe5c..e5b7c6239970 100644
--- a/kernel/events/uprobes.c
+++ b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
@@ -725,7 +725,7 @@ static struct uprobe *alloc_uprobe(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset,
 
 	uprobe = kzalloc(sizeof(struct uprobe), GFP_KERNEL);
 	if (!uprobe)
-		return NULL;
+		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
 
 	uprobe->inode = inode;
 	uprobe->offset = offset;
@@ -1166,8 +1166,6 @@ int uprobe_register(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset, loff_t ref_ctr_offset,
 
  retry:
 	uprobe = alloc_uprobe(inode, offset, ref_ctr_offset);
-	if (!uprobe)
-		return -ENOMEM;
 	if (IS_ERR(uprobe))
 		return PTR_ERR(uprobe);
 
-- 
2.25.1.362.g51ebf55

Re: [PATCH 2/3] uprobes: simplify error handling for alloc_uprobe()

[Masami Hiramatsu]

On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 18:31:11 +0200
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:

> From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
> 
> Return -ENOMEM instead of NULL, which makes caller's error handling just
> a touch simpler.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>

Looks good to me.

Reviewed-by: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org>

> ---
>  kernel/events/uprobes.c | 4 +---
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/events/uprobes.c b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> index 4950decebe5c..e5b7c6239970 100644
> --- a/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> +++ b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> @@ -725,7 +725,7 @@ static struct uprobe *alloc_uprobe(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset,
>  
>  	uprobe = kzalloc(sizeof(struct uprobe), GFP_KERNEL);
>  	if (!uprobe)
> -		return NULL;
> +		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>  
>  	uprobe->inode = inode;
>  	uprobe->offset = offset;
> @@ -1166,8 +1166,6 @@ int uprobe_register(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset, loff_t ref_ctr_offset,
>  
>   retry:
>  	uprobe = alloc_uprobe(inode, offset, ref_ctr_offset);
> -	if (!uprobe)
> -		return -ENOMEM;
>  	if (IS_ERR(uprobe))
>  		return PTR_ERR(uprobe);
>  
> -- 
> 2.25.1.362.g51ebf55
> 
> 


-- 
Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org>

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

[Oleg Nesterov]

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
@@ -110,9 +110,9 @@ extern bool is_trap_insn(uprobe_opcode_t *insn);
 extern unsigned long uprobe_get_swbp_addr(struct pt_regs *regs);
 extern unsigned long uprobe_get_trap_addr(struct pt_regs *regs);
 extern int uprobe_write_opcode(struct arch_uprobe *auprobe, struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long vaddr, uprobe_opcode_t);
-extern int uprobe_register(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset, loff_t ref_ctr_offset, struct uprobe_consumer *uc);
-extern int uprobe_apply(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset, struct uprobe_consumer *uc, bool);
-extern void uprobe_unregister(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset, struct uprobe_consumer *uc);
+extern struct uprobe *uprobe_register(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset, loff_t ref_ctr_offset, struct uprobe_consumer *uc);
+extern int uprobe_apply(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct uprobe_consumer *uc, bool);
+extern void uprobe_unregister(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct uprobe_consumer *uc);
 extern int uprobe_mmap(struct vm_area_struct *vma);
 extern void uprobe_munmap(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long start, unsigned long end);
 extern void uprobe_start_dup_mmap(void);
@@ -147,18 +147,18 @@ static inline void uprobes_init(void)
 
 #define uprobe_get_trap_addr(regs)	instruction_pointer(regs)
 
-static inline int
+static inline struct uprobe *
 uprobe_register(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset, loff_t ref_ctr_offset, struct uprobe_consumer *uc)
 {
-	return -ENOSYS;
+	return ERR_PTR(-ENOSYS);
 }
 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;
 }
 static inline void
-uprobe_unregister(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset, struct uprobe_consumer *uc)
+uprobe_unregister(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct uprobe_consumer *uc)
 {
 }
 static inline int uprobe_mmap(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
diff --git a/kernel/events/uprobes.c b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
index e5b7c6239970..dba41403d7b8 100644
--- a/kernel/events/uprobes.c
+++ b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
@@ -1100,22 +1100,15 @@ __uprobe_unregister(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct uprobe_consumer *uc)
 
 /*
  * uprobe_unregister - unregister an already registered probe.
- * @inode: the file in which the probe has to be removed.
+ * @uprobe: uprobe to remove
  * @offset: offset from the start of the file.
  * @uc: identify which probe if multiple probes are colocated.
  */
-void uprobe_unregister(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset, struct uprobe_consumer *uc)
+void uprobe_unregister(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct uprobe_consumer *uc)
 {
-	struct uprobe *uprobe;
-
-	uprobe = find_uprobe(inode, offset);
-	if (WARN_ON(!uprobe))
-		return;
-
 	down_write(&uprobe->register_rwsem);
 	__uprobe_unregister(uprobe, uc);
 	up_write(&uprobe->register_rwsem);
-	put_uprobe(uprobe);
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(uprobe_unregister);
 
@@ -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)
  */
-int uprobe_register(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset, loff_t ref_ctr_offset,
-		    struct uprobe_consumer *uc)
+struct uprobe *uprobe_register(struct inode *inode,
+				loff_t offset, loff_t ref_ctr_offset,
+				struct uprobe_consumer *uc)
 {
 	struct uprobe *uprobe;
 	int ret;
 
 	/* Uprobe must have at least one set consumer */
 	if (!uc->handler && !uc->ret_handler)
-		return -EINVAL;
+		return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
 
 	/* copy_insn() uses read_mapping_page() or shmem_read_mapping_page() */
 	if (!inode->i_mapping->a_ops->read_folio &&
 	    !shmem_mapping(inode->i_mapping))
-		return -EIO;
+		return ERR_PTR(-EIO);
 	/* Racy, just to catch the obvious mistakes */
 	if (offset > i_size_read(inode))
-		return -EINVAL;
+		return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
 
 	/*
 	 * This ensures that copy_from_page(), copy_to_page() and
 	 * __update_ref_ctr() can't cross page boundary.
 	 */
 	if (!IS_ALIGNED(offset, UPROBE_SWBP_INSN_SIZE))
-		return -EINVAL;
+		return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
 	if (!IS_ALIGNED(ref_ctr_offset, sizeof(short)))
-		return -EINVAL;
+		return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
 
  retry:
 	uprobe = alloc_uprobe(inode, offset, ref_ctr_offset);
 	if (IS_ERR(uprobe))
-		return PTR_ERR(uprobe);
+		return uprobe;
 
 	/*
 	 * We can race with uprobe_unregister()->delete_uprobe().
@@ -1186,35 +1177,27 @@ int uprobe_register(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset, loff_t ref_ctr_offset,
 
 	if (unlikely(ret == -EAGAIN))
 		goto retry;
-	return ret;
+
+	return ret ? ERR_PTR(ret) : uprobe;
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(uprobe_register);
 
 /*
  * 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.
  * @uc: consumer which wants to add more or remove some breakpoints
  * @add: add or remove the breakpoints
  */
-int uprobe_apply(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset,
-			struct uprobe_consumer *uc, bool add)
+int uprobe_apply(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct uprobe_consumer *uc, bool add)
 {
-	struct uprobe *uprobe;
 	struct uprobe_consumer *con;
 	int ret = -ENOENT;
 
-	uprobe = find_uprobe(inode, offset);
-	if (WARN_ON(!uprobe))
-		return ret;
-
 	down_write(&uprobe->register_rwsem);
 	for (con = uprobe->consumers; con && con != uc ; con = con->next)
 		;
 	if (con)
 		ret = register_for_each_vma(uprobe, add ? uc : NULL);
 	up_write(&uprobe->register_rwsem);
-	put_uprobe(uprobe);
 
 	return ret;
 }
diff --git a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
index 467f358c8ce7..7571811127a2 100644
--- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
+++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
@@ -3157,6 +3157,7 @@ struct bpf_uprobe {
 	loff_t offset;
 	unsigned long ref_ctr_offset;
 	u64 cookie;
+	struct uprobe *uprobe;
 	struct uprobe_consumer consumer;
 };
 
@@ -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++)
+		uprobe_unregister(uprobes[i].uprobe, &uprobes[i].consumer);
 }
 
 static void bpf_uprobe_multi_link_release(struct bpf_link *link)
@@ -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),
 					     uprobes[i].offset,
 					     uprobes[i].ref_ctr_offset,
 					     &uprobes[i].consumer);
-		if (err) {
+		if (IS_ERR(uprobes[i].uprobe)) {
+			err = PTR_ERR(uprobes[i].uprobe);
 			bpf_uprobe_unregister(&path, uprobes, i);
 			goto error_free;
 		}
diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_uprobe.c b/kernel/trace/trace_uprobe.c
index 78a5c40e885a..2872955da202 100644
--- a/kernel/trace/trace_uprobe.c
+++ b/kernel/trace/trace_uprobe.c
@@ -58,8 +58,8 @@ struct trace_uprobe {
 	struct dyn_event		devent;
 	struct uprobe_consumer		consumer;
 	struct path			path;
-	struct inode			*inode;
 	char				*filename;
+	struct uprobe			*uprobe;
 	unsigned long			offset;
 	unsigned long			ref_ctr_offset;
 	unsigned long			nhit;
@@ -1084,17 +1084,17 @@ typedef bool (*filter_func_t)(struct uprobe_consumer *self,
 
 static int trace_uprobe_enable(struct trace_uprobe *tu, filter_func_t filter)
 {
-	int ret;
+	struct inode *inode = d_real_inode(tu->path.dentry);
+	struct uprobe *uprobe;
 
 	tu->consumer.filter = filter;
-	tu->inode = d_real_inode(tu->path.dentry);
-
-	ret = uprobe_register(tu->inode, tu->offset, tu->ref_ctr_offset,
-			      &tu->consumer);
-	if (ret)
-		tu->inode = NULL;
+	uprobe = uprobe_register(inode, tu->offset, tu->ref_ctr_offset,
+				&tu->consumer);
+	if (IS_ERR(uprobe))
+		return PTR_ERR(uprobe);
 
-	return ret;
+	tu->uprobe = uprobe;
+	return 0;
 }
 
 static void __probe_event_disable(struct trace_probe *tp)
@@ -1105,11 +1105,11 @@ static void __probe_event_disable(struct trace_probe *tp)
 	WARN_ON(!uprobe_filter_is_empty(tu->tp.event->filter));
 
 	list_for_each_entry(tu, trace_probe_probe_list(tp), tp.list) {
-		if (!tu->inode)
+		if (!tu->uprobe)
 			continue;
 
-		uprobe_unregister(tu->inode, tu->offset, &tu->consumer);
-		tu->inode = NULL;
+		uprobe_unregister(tu->uprobe, &tu->consumer);
+		tu->uprobe = NULL;
 	}
 }
 
@@ -1306,7 +1306,7 @@ static int uprobe_perf_close(struct trace_event_call *call,
 		return 0;
 
 	list_for_each_entry(tu, trace_probe_probe_list(tp), tp.list) {
-		ret = uprobe_apply(tu->inode, tu->offset, &tu->consumer, false);
+		ret = uprobe_apply(tu->uprobe, &tu->consumer, false);
 		if (ret)
 			break;
 	}
@@ -1330,7 +1330,7 @@ static int uprobe_perf_open(struct trace_event_call *call,
 		return 0;
 
 	list_for_each_entry(tu, trace_probe_probe_list(tp), tp.list) {
-		err = uprobe_apply(tu->inode, tu->offset, &tu->consumer, true);
+		err = uprobe_apply(tu->uprobe, &tu->consumer, true);
 		if (err) {
 			uprobe_perf_close(call, event);
 			break;
-- 
2.25.1.362.g51ebf55

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

[Jiri Olsa]

On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 06:31:33PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:

SNIP

> diff --git a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> index 467f358c8ce7..7571811127a2 100644
> --- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> @@ -3157,6 +3157,7 @@ struct bpf_uprobe {
>  	loff_t offset;
>  	unsigned long ref_ctr_offset;
>  	u64 cookie;
> +	struct uprobe *uprobe;
>  	struct uprobe_consumer consumer;
>  };
>  
> @@ -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);
> -	}

nice, we could also drop path argument now

jirka

> +	for (i = 0; i < cnt; i++)
> +		uprobe_unregister(uprobes[i].uprobe, &uprobes[i].consumer);
>  }
>  
>  static void bpf_uprobe_multi_link_release(struct bpf_link *link)
> @@ -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),
>  					     uprobes[i].offset,
>  					     uprobes[i].ref_ctr_offset,
>  					     &uprobes[i].consumer);
> -		if (err) {
> +		if (IS_ERR(uprobes[i].uprobe)) {
> +			err = PTR_ERR(uprobes[i].uprobe);
>  			bpf_uprobe_unregister(&path, uprobes, i);
>  			goto error_free;
>  		}

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

[Andrii Nakryiko]

On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 9:49 AM Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 06:31:33PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
> > diff --git a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > index 467f358c8ce7..7571811127a2 100644
> > --- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > +++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > @@ -3157,6 +3157,7 @@ struct bpf_uprobe {
> >       loff_t offset;
> >       unsigned long ref_ctr_offset;
> >       u64 cookie;
> > +     struct uprobe *uprobe;
> >       struct uprobe_consumer consumer;
> >  };
> >
> > @@ -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);
> > -     }
>
> nice, we could also drop path argument now

see my comments to Oleg, I think we can/should get rid of link->path
altogether if uprobe itself keeps inode alive.

BTW, Jiri, do we have any test for multi-uprobe that simulates partial
attachment success/failure (whichever way you want to look at it). It
would be super useful to have to check at least some error handling
code in the uprobe code base. If we don't, do you mind adding
something simple to BPF selftests?

>
> jirka
>
> > +     for (i = 0; i < cnt; i++)
> > +             uprobe_unregister(uprobes[i].uprobe, &uprobes[i].consumer);
> >  }
> >
> >  static void bpf_uprobe_multi_link_release(struct bpf_link *link)
> > @@ -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),
> >                                            uprobes[i].offset,
> >                                            uprobes[i].ref_ctr_offset,
> >                                            &uprobes[i].consumer);
> > -             if (err) {
> > +             if (IS_ERR(uprobes[i].uprobe)) {
> > +                     err = PTR_ERR(uprobes[i].uprobe);
> >                       bpf_uprobe_unregister(&path, uprobes, i);
> >                       goto error_free;
> >               }

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

[Jiri Olsa]

On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 11:23:10AM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 9:49 AM Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 06:31:33PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > SNIP
> >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > > index 467f358c8ce7..7571811127a2 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > > @@ -3157,6 +3157,7 @@ struct bpf_uprobe {
> > >       loff_t offset;
> > >       unsigned long ref_ctr_offset;
> > >       u64 cookie;
> > > +     struct uprobe *uprobe;
> > >       struct uprobe_consumer consumer;
> > >  };
> > >
> > > @@ -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);
> > > -     }
> >
> > nice, we could also drop path argument now
> 
> see my comments to Oleg, I think we can/should get rid of link->path
> altogether if uprobe itself keeps inode alive.

yea, I was thinking of that, but then it's kind of useful to have it in
bpf_uprobe_multi_link_fill_link_info, otherwise we have to take it from
first uprobe in the link, but ok, still probably worth to remove it ;-)

anyway as you wrote it's ok for follow up cleanup, I'll check on that

> 
> BTW, Jiri, do we have any test for multi-uprobe that simulates partial
> attachment success/failure (whichever way you want to look at it). It
> would be super useful to have to check at least some error handling
> code in the uprobe code base. If we don't, do you mind adding
> something simple to BPF selftests?

there's test_attach_api_fails, but I think all checked fails are before
actually calling uprobe_register function

I think there are few ways to fail the uprobe_register, like install it
on top of int3.. will check add some test for that

jirka

> 
> >
> > jirka
> >
> > > +     for (i = 0; i < cnt; i++)
> > > +             uprobe_unregister(uprobes[i].uprobe, &uprobes[i].consumer);
> > >  }
> > >
> > >  static void bpf_uprobe_multi_link_release(struct bpf_link *link)
> > > @@ -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),
> > >                                            uprobes[i].offset,
> > >                                            uprobes[i].ref_ctr_offset,
> > >                                            &uprobes[i].consumer);
> > > -             if (err) {
> > > +             if (IS_ERR(uprobes[i].uprobe)) {
> > > +                     err = PTR_ERR(uprobes[i].uprobe);
> > >                       bpf_uprobe_unregister(&path, uprobes, i);
> > >                       goto error_free;
> > >               }

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

[Andrii Nakryiko]

On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 12:38 PM Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 11:23:10AM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 9:49 AM Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 06:31:33PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > SNIP
> > >
> > > > diff --git a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > > > index 467f358c8ce7..7571811127a2 100644
> > > > --- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > > > +++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > > > @@ -3157,6 +3157,7 @@ struct bpf_uprobe {
> > > >       loff_t offset;
> > > >       unsigned long ref_ctr_offset;
> > > >       u64 cookie;
> > > > +     struct uprobe *uprobe;
> > > >       struct uprobe_consumer consumer;
> > > >  };
> > > >
> > > > @@ -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);
> > > > -     }
> > >
> > > nice, we could also drop path argument now
> >
> > see my comments to Oleg, I think we can/should get rid of link->path
> > altogether if uprobe itself keeps inode alive.
>
> yea, I was thinking of that, but then it's kind of useful to have it in
> bpf_uprobe_multi_link_fill_link_info, otherwise we have to take it from
> first uprobe in the link, but ok, still probably worth to remove it ;-)

if we need it for link_info, probably cleaner to just keep it, no big deal then

>
> anyway as you wrote it's ok for follow up cleanup, I'll check on that
>
> >
> > BTW, Jiri, do we have any test for multi-uprobe that simulates partial
> > attachment success/failure (whichever way you want to look at it). It
> > would be super useful to have to check at least some error handling
> > code in the uprobe code base. If we don't, do you mind adding
> > something simple to BPF selftests?
>
> there's test_attach_api_fails, but I think all checked fails are before
> actually calling uprobe_register function
>
> I think there are few ways to fail the uprobe_register, like install it
> on top of int3.. will check add some test for that
>

great, thank you!

> jirka
>
> >
> > >
> > > jirka
> > >
> > > > +     for (i = 0; i < cnt; i++)
> > > > +             uprobe_unregister(uprobes[i].uprobe, &uprobes[i].consumer);
> > > >  }
> > > >
> > > >  static void bpf_uprobe_multi_link_release(struct bpf_link *link)
> > > > @@ -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),
> > > >                                            uprobes[i].offset,
> > > >                                            uprobes[i].ref_ctr_offset,
> > > >                                            &uprobes[i].consumer);
> > > > -             if (err) {
> > > > +             if (IS_ERR(uprobes[i].uprobe)) {
> > > > +                     err = PTR_ERR(uprobes[i].uprobe);
> > > >                       bpf_uprobe_unregister(&path, uprobes, i);
> > > >                       goto error_free;
> > > >               }

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

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 07/10, Jiri Olsa wrote:
>
> > @@ -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);
> > -	}
>
> nice, we could also drop path argument now

Indeed, I missed that. Will send V2 when/if this makes any sense.

Thanks!

Oleg.

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

[Andrii Nakryiko]

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?

> @@ -110,9 +110,9 @@ extern bool is_trap_insn(uprobe_opcode_t *insn);
>  extern unsigned long uprobe_get_swbp_addr(struct pt_regs *regs);
>  extern unsigned long uprobe_get_trap_addr(struct pt_regs *regs);
>  extern int uprobe_write_opcode(struct arch_uprobe *auprobe, struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long vaddr, uprobe_opcode_t);
> -extern int uprobe_register(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset, loff_t ref_ctr_offset, struct uprobe_consumer *uc);
> -extern int uprobe_apply(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset, struct uprobe_consumer *uc, bool);
> -extern void uprobe_unregister(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset, struct uprobe_consumer *uc);
> +extern struct uprobe *uprobe_register(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset, loff_t ref_ctr_offset, struct uprobe_consumer *uc);
> +extern int uprobe_apply(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct uprobe_consumer *uc, bool);
> +extern void uprobe_unregister(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct uprobe_consumer *uc);
>  extern int uprobe_mmap(struct vm_area_struct *vma);
>  extern void uprobe_munmap(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long start, unsigned long end);
>  extern void uprobe_start_dup_mmap(void);
> @@ -147,18 +147,18 @@ static inline void uprobes_init(void)
>
>  #define uprobe_get_trap_addr(regs)     instruction_pointer(regs)
>
> -static inline int
> +static inline struct uprobe *
>  uprobe_register(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset, loff_t ref_ctr_offset, struct uprobe_consumer *uc)
>  {
> -       return -ENOSYS;
> +       return ERR_PTR(-ENOSYS);
>  }
>  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. I didn't dig deeper, but think
whether we even need this? If this is just to avoid (for some period)
some consumer callback calling, then that could be handled at the
consumer side by ignoring such calls.

callback call is cheap, it's the int3 handling that's expensive and
with uprobe_apply we are already paying it anyways, so what is this
for?

>  static inline void
> -uprobe_unregister(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset, struct uprobe_consumer *uc)
> +uprobe_unregister(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct uprobe_consumer *uc)
>  {
>  }
>  static inline int uprobe_mmap(struct vm_area_struct *vma)

[...]

>
> @@ -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.

>   */
> -int uprobe_register(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset, loff_t ref_ctr_offset,
> -                   struct uprobe_consumer *uc)
> +struct uprobe *uprobe_register(struct inode *inode,
> +                               loff_t offset, loff_t ref_ctr_offset,
> +                               struct uprobe_consumer *uc)
>  {

[...]

> @@ -1186,35 +1177,27 @@ int uprobe_register(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset, loff_t ref_ctr_offset,
>
>         if (unlikely(ret == -EAGAIN))
>                 goto retry;
> -       return ret;
> +
> +       return ret ? ERR_PTR(ret) : uprobe;
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(uprobe_register);
>
>  /*

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

>   * 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?

>   * @uc: consumer which wants to add more or remove some breakpoints
>   * @add: add or remove the breakpoints
>   */
> -int uprobe_apply(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset,
> -                       struct uprobe_consumer *uc, bool add)
> +int uprobe_apply(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct uprobe_consumer *uc, bool add)
>  {
> -       struct uprobe *uprobe;
>         struct uprobe_consumer *con;
>         int ret = -ENOENT;
>

[...]

> @@ -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)

> +               uprobe_unregister(uprobes[i].uprobe, &uprobes[i].consumer);
>  }
>
>  static void bpf_uprobe_multi_link_release(struct bpf_link *link)
> @@ -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? If that's
the case we can get rid of link->path (have it only as a local
variable which we put as soon as we are done with registration). We
can probably do that clean up separately, I'll defer to Jiri.

>                                              uprobes[i].offset,
>                                              uprobes[i].ref_ctr_offset,
>                                              &uprobes[i].consumer);
> -               if (err) {
> +               if (IS_ERR(uprobes[i].uprobe)) {
> +                       err = PTR_ERR(uprobes[i].uprobe);

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

or maybe better yet let's just have local struct uprobe variable and
only assign it if registration succeeded (still need NULL check in
bpf_uprobe_unregister above)

>                         bpf_uprobe_unregister(&path, uprobes, i);
>                         goto error_free;
>                 }

[...]

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

[Oleg Nesterov]

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.

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

[Andrii Nakryiko]

On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 1:18 PM Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>

Yep, I saw that and was wondering as well.

> > >  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.

yep, that's why it's an aside, up to you

>
> > > @@ -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 ;)

I'm pointing this out because I accidentally used /** for comment for
some function, and I got some bot report about missing argument. I
think /** makes sense for documenting "public API" function, so which
is why all the above.

>
> > > @@ -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.

no, you are right, it should be fine

>
> > > @@ -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.

ok, then link->path has to stay, I was just wondering if we need to
keep it alive

>
> > 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?

yes, you are absolutely right, I missed that for this partial failure
case we pass i as count into bpf_uprobe_unregister(), sorry about the
noise!


please feel free to add my ack for the next revision:

Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>

>
> Oleg.
>

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

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 07/10, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> -void uprobe_unregister(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset, struct uprobe_consumer *uc)
> +void uprobe_unregister(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct uprobe_consumer *uc)
>  {
> -	struct uprobe *uprobe;
> -
> -	uprobe = find_uprobe(inode, offset);
> -	if (WARN_ON(!uprobe))
> -		return;
> -
>  	down_write(&uprobe->register_rwsem);
>  	__uprobe_unregister(uprobe, uc);
>  	up_write(&uprobe->register_rwsem);
> -	put_uprobe(uprobe);

OK, this is obviously wrong, needs get_uprobe/put_uprobe. __uprobe_unregister()
can free this uprobe, so up_write(&uprobe->register_rwsem) is not safe.

I'll send V2 on top of Peter's new version.

Oleg.

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

[Andrii Nakryiko]

On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 2:28 AM Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 07/10, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > -void uprobe_unregister(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset, struct uprobe_consumer *uc)
> > +void uprobe_unregister(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct uprobe_consumer *uc)
> >  {
> > -     struct uprobe *uprobe;
> > -
> > -     uprobe = find_uprobe(inode, offset);
> > -     if (WARN_ON(!uprobe))
> > -             return;
> > -
> >       down_write(&uprobe->register_rwsem);
> >       __uprobe_unregister(uprobe, uc);
> >       up_write(&uprobe->register_rwsem);
> > -     put_uprobe(uprobe);
>
> OK, this is obviously wrong, needs get_uprobe/put_uprobe. __uprobe_unregister()
> can free this uprobe, so up_write(&uprobe->register_rwsem) is not safe.

uprobe_register(), given it returns an uprobe instance to the caller
should keep refcount on it (it belongs to uprobe_consumer). That's
what I did for my patches, are you going to do that as well?

We basically do the same thing, just interfaces look a bit different.


>
> I'll send V2 on top of Peter's new version.
>
> Oleg.
>

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

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 07/11, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 2:28 AM Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 07/10, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > -void uprobe_unregister(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset, struct uprobe_consumer *uc)
> > > +void uprobe_unregister(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct uprobe_consumer *uc)
> > >  {
> > > -     struct uprobe *uprobe;
> > > -
> > > -     uprobe = find_uprobe(inode, offset);
> > > -     if (WARN_ON(!uprobe))
> > > -             return;
> > > -
> > >       down_write(&uprobe->register_rwsem);
> > >       __uprobe_unregister(uprobe, uc);
> > >       up_write(&uprobe->register_rwsem);
> > > -     put_uprobe(uprobe);
> >
> > OK, this is obviously wrong, needs get_uprobe/put_uprobe. __uprobe_unregister()
> > can free this uprobe, so up_write(&uprobe->register_rwsem) is not safe.
>
> uprobe_register(), given it returns an uprobe instance to the caller
> should keep refcount on it (it belongs to uprobe_consumer).

Of course. And again, this patch doesn't change the curent behaviour.

> That's
> what I did for my patches, are you going to do that as well?
>
> We basically do the same thing, just interfaces look a bit different.

Not sure. Well I do not really know, I didn't read your series to the
end, sorry ;) The same for V1/V2 from Peter so far.

But let me say this just in case... With or without this change,
currently uprobe_consumer doesn't have an "individual" ref to uprobe.
The fact that uprobe->consumers != NULL adds a reference.

Lets not discuss if this is good or bad right now, this cleanup is
only cleanup.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, let me add another "just in case" note to explain what I am going
to do in V2.

So. this patch should turn uprobe_unregister() into something like

	void uprobe_unregister(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct uprobe_consumer *uc)
	{
		// Ugly !!!! please kill me!!!
		get_uprobe(uprobe);
		down_write(&uprobe->register_rwsem);
		__uprobe_unregister(uprobe, uc);
		up_write(&uprobe->register_rwsem);
		put_uprobe(uprobe);
	}

to simplify this change. And the next (simple) patch will kill these
get_uprobe + put_uprobe, we just need to shift the (possibly) final
put_uprobe() from delete_uprobe() to unregister().

But of course, I will recheck before I send V2.

Oleg.

Re: [PATCH 0/3] uprobes: future cleanups for review

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 06:30:22PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 07/10, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Peter, these simple cleanups should not conflict with your changes,
> > but I can resend them later if it causes any inconvenience.
> 
> In fact I would like to push 2 more cleanups before the more significant
> changes, but they certainly conflict with your ongoing work, albeit only
> textually.
> 
> Let me send the patches for review anyway, perhaps you can take at least
> the 1st one.
> 
> 3/3 is only compile tested so far. Andrii, can you take a look?

I was going to post a new version today, but I can wait and rebase on
top of / include these 5 patches (or more, these things tend to grow).

Re: [PATCH 0/3] uprobes: future cleanups for review

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 07/11, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 06:30:22PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > In fact I would like to push 2 more cleanups before the more significant
> > changes, but they certainly conflict with your ongoing work, albeit only
> > textually.
> >
> > Let me send the patches for review anyway, perhaps you can take at least
> > the 1st one.
> >
> > 3/3 is only compile tested so far. Andrii, can you take a look?
>
> I was going to post a new version today, but I can wait and rebase on

No, I do not want to delay your changes, please send the new version,
I'll rebase these cleanups on top of it.

Oleg.