From: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com>
To: Wang Nan <wangnan0@huawei.com>
Cc: tixy@linaro.org, linux@arm.linux.org.uk,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, lizefan@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kprobes: bugfix: force unoptimize when disable kprobes.
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 20:42:38 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54B3B32E.7070709@hitachi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1420461140-27153-1-git-send-email-wangnan0@huawei.com>
(2015/01/05 21:32), Wang Nan wrote:
> Original code failed to disarm the probed instruction after
>
> echo 0 > /sys/kernel/debug/kprobes/enabled
>
> if OPTPROBE is enabled.
>
> This is caused by a piece of logically inconsistent code:
>
> unoptimize_kprobe(p, false);
> if (!kprobe_queued(p)) {
> ...
> }
>
> unoptimize_kprobe() with 'force' == false queues p onto
> unoptimizing_list, so following kprobe_queued() check always fail unless
> another core schedules optimizer and does the unoptimization very soon.
> This logic causes arch_disarm_kprobe() failed to get execute, lefts a
> breakpoint at the probed address, instead of restoring it.
No, the root cause of this failure comes from the lack of checking
kprobes_all_disarmed in unoptimized_kprobe(). It should check the flag
and return soon if it is set.
So, I Nak this patch.
>
> This patch uses force unoptimize instead.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wang Nan <wangnan0@huawei.com>
> ---
> kernel/kprobes.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/kprobes.c b/kernel/kprobes.c
> index b185464..9fbe0c3 100644
> --- a/kernel/kprobes.c
> +++ b/kernel/kprobes.c
> @@ -869,7 +869,7 @@ static void __disarm_kprobe(struct kprobe *p, bool reopt)
> {
> struct kprobe *_p;
>
> - unoptimize_kprobe(p, false); /* Try to unoptimize */
> + unoptimize_kprobe(p, true); /* Try to unoptimize */
>
> if (!kprobe_queued(p)) {
> arch_disarm_kprobe(p);
>
--
Masami HIRAMATSU
Software Platform Research Dept. Linux Technology Research Center
Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory
E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-01-12 11:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-01-05 12:32 [PATCH] kprobes: bugfix: force unoptimize when disable kprobes Wang Nan
2015-01-12 11:42 ` Masami Hiramatsu [this message]
2015-01-12 12:09 ` [PATCH] kprobes: bugfix: checks kprobes_all_disarmed in unoptimized_kprobe() Wang Nan
2015-01-12 12:52 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2015-01-19 3:04 ` Wang Nan
2015-01-19 9:05 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2015-01-19 11:21 ` Wang Nan
2015-01-19 12:45 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2015-01-19 12:59 ` Wang Nan
2015-01-20 2:51 ` [PATCH] kprobes: bugfix: makes kprobes/enabled works correctly for optimized kprobes Wang Nan
2015-01-20 7:12 ` Masami Hiramatsu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=54B3B32E.7070709@hitachi.com \
--to=masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=lizefan@huawei.com \
--cc=tixy@linaro.org \
--cc=wangnan0@huawei.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox