From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753453Ab1IZMOh (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Sep 2011 08:14:37 -0400 Received: from e6.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.146]:59000 "EHLO e6.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753216Ab1IZMOg (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Sep 2011 08:14:36 -0400 Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 17:29:19 +0530 From: Srikar Dronamraju To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi , Ingo Molnar , Steven Rostedt , Linux-mm , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Linus Torvalds , Andi Kleen , Hugh Dickins , Christoph Hellwig , Jonathan Corbet , Thomas Gleixner , Masami Hiramatsu , Oleg Nesterov , LKML , Jim Keniston , Roland McGrath , Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3.1.0-rc4-tip 1/26] uprobes: Auxillary routines to insert, find, delete uprobes Message-ID: <20110926115919.GB4072@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: Srikar Dronamraju References: <20110920115938.25326.93059.sendpatchset@srdronam.in.ibm.com> <20110920115949.25326.2469.sendpatchset@srdronam.in.ibm.com> <20110920154259.GA25610@stefanha-thinkpad.localdomain> <1317035918.9084.83.camel@twins> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1317035918.9084.83.camel@twins> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Peter Zijlstra [2011-09-26 13:18:38]: > On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 16:42 +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 05:29:49PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote: > > > +static void delete_uprobe(struct uprobe *uprobe) > > > +{ > > > + unsigned long flags; > > > + > > > + spin_lock_irqsave(&uprobes_treelock, flags); > > > + rb_erase(&uprobe->rb_node, &uprobes_tree); > > > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&uprobes_treelock, flags); > > > + put_uprobe(uprobe); > > > + iput(uprobe->inode); > > > > Use-after-free when put_uprobe() kfrees() the uprobe? > > I suspect the caller still has one, and this was the reference for being > part of the tree. But yes, that could do with a comment. > Yes, the caller has a reference, However I went ahead and changed the order of the last two statements. > The comment near atomic_set() in __insert_uprobe() isn't too clear > either. /* get access + drop ref */, would naively seem +1 -1 = 0, > instead of +1 +1 = 2. > Okay, Have modified the comment to /* get access + creation ref */ -- Thanks and Regards Srikar