Re: [PATCH perf/core 02/11] uprobes: Skip emulate/sstep on unique uprobe when ip is changed

[Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>]

On 09/04, Jiri Olsa wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2025 at 10:49:50AM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 09/03, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 03, 2025 at 01:26:48PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > > On 09/02, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > If user decided to take execution elsewhere, it makes little sense
> > > > > to execute the original instruction, so let's skip it.
> > > >
> > > > Exactly.
> > > >
> > > > So why do we need all these "is_unique" complications? Only a single
> > > > is_unique/exclusive consumer can change regs->ip, so I guess handle_swbp()
> > > > can just do
> > > >
> > > > 	handler_chain(uprobe, regs);
> > > > 	if (instruction_pointer(regs) != bp_vaddr)
> > > > 		goto out;
> > >
> > > hum, that's what I did in rfc [1] but I thought you did not like that [2]
> > >
> > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20250801210238.2207429-2-jolsa@kernel.org/
> > > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20250802103426.GC31711@redhat.com/
> > >
> > > I guess I misunderstood your reply [2], I'd be happy to drop the
> > > unique/exclusive flag
> >
> > Well, but that rfc didn't introduce the exclusive consumers, and I think
> > we agree that even with these changes the non-exclusive consumers must
> > never change regs->ip?
>
> ok, got excited too soon.. so you meant getting rid of is_unique
> check only for this patch and have just change below..  but keep
> the unique/exclusive flag from patch#1

Yes, this is what I meant,

> IIUC Andrii would remove the unique flag completely?

Lets wait for Andrii...

Oleg.