From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1755335Ab1KXJub (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 24 Nov 2011 04:50:31 -0500
Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:37868 "EHLO
	merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751321Ab1KXJu3 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 24 Nov 2011 04:50:29 -0500
Message-ID: <1322128199.2921.3.camel@twins>
Subject: Re: Fwd: uprobes: register/unregister probes.
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Roland McGrath <roland@hack.frob.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@infradead.org>,
        Anton Arapov <anton@redhat.com>,
        Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@in.ibm.com>,
        Jim Keniston <jkenisto@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, tulasidhard@gmail.com
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 10:49:59 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20111124070303.GB28065@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <hYuXv-26J-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <hYuXw-26J-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
	 <i0nRU-7eK-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
	 <603b0079-5f54-4299-9a9a-a5e237ccca73@l23g2000pro.googlegroups.com>
	 <20111124070303.GB28065@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.1- 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, 2011-11-24 at 12:33 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > On Fri, 2011-11-18 at 16:37 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > > +int register_uprobe(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset,
> > > +                               struct uprobe_consumer *consumer)
> > > +{
> > > +       struct uprobe *uprobe;
> > > +       int ret = -EINVAL;
> > > +
> > > +       if (!consumer || consumer->next)
> > > +               return ret;
> > > +
> > > +       inode = igrab(inode);
> > 
> > So why are you dealing with !consumer but not with !inode? and why
> > does
> > it make sense to allow !consumer at all?
> > 
> 
> 
> I am not sure if I got your comment correctly.
> 
> I do check for inode just after the igrab.

No you don't, you check the return value of igrab(), but you crash hard
when someone calls register_uprobe(.inode=NULL).

> I am actually not dealing with !consumer.
> If the consumer is NULL, then we dont have any handler to run so why
> would we want to register such a probe?

Why allow someone calling register_uprobe(.consumer=NULL) to begin with?
That doesn't make any sense.

> Also if consumer->next is Non-NULL, that means that this consumer was
> already used.  Reusing the consumer, can result in consumers list getting
> broken into two.

Yeah, although at that point why be nice about it? Just but a WARN_ON()
in or so.