Re: [PATCHv3 1/7] uprobe: Add support for session consumer

[Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>]

On 09/13, Jiri Olsa wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 06:35:39PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >  	list_for_each_entry_srcu(uc, &uprobe->consumers, cons_node,
> > >  				 srcu_read_lock_held(&uprobes_srcu)) {
> > > +		/*
> > > +		 * If we don't find return consumer, it means uprobe consumer
> > > +		 * was added after we hit uprobe and return consumer did not
> > > +		 * get registered in which case we call the ret_handler only
> > > +		 * if it's not session consumer.
> > > +		 */
> > > +		ric = return_consumer_find(ri, &iter, uc->id);
> > > +		if (!ric && uc->session)
> > > +			continue;
> > >  		if (uc->ret_handler)
> > > -			uc->ret_handler(uc, ri->func, regs);
> > > +			uc->ret_handler(uc, ri->func, regs, ric ? &ric->cookie : NULL);
> >
> > So why do we need the new uc->session member and the uc->session above ?
> >
> > If return_consumer_find() returns NULL, uc->ret_handler(..., NULL) can handle
> > this case itself?
>
> I tried to explain that in the comment above.. we do not want to
> execute session ret_handler at all in this case, because its entry
> counterpart did not run

I understand, but the session ret_handler(..., __u64 *data) can simply do

	// my ->handler() didn't run or it didn't return 0
	if (!data)
		return;

at the start?

Oleg.