Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 15 Mar 2018 15:30:45 +0100
From:   Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To:     Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     mhiramat@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org,
        srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, acme@kernel.org,
        ananth@linux.vnet.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com, alexis.berlemont@gmail.com,
        corbet@lwn.net, dan.j.williams@intel.com,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, huawei.libin@huawei.com,
        hughd@google.com, jack@suse.cz, jglisse@redhat.com,
        jolsa@redhat.com, kan.liang@intel.com,
        kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, kjlx@templeofstupid.com,
        kstewart@linuxfoundation.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, mhocko@suse.com,
        milian.wolff@kdab.com, mingo@redhat.com, namhyung@kernel.org,
        naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com, pc@us.ibm.com,
        pombredanne@nexb.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
        tmricht@linux.vnet.ibm.com, willy@infradead.org,
        yao.jin@linux.intel.com, fengguang.wu@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] trace_uprobe: Support SDT markers having reference
 count (semaphore)
Message-ID: <20180315143044.GA19643@redhat.com>
References: <20180313125603.19819-1-ravi.bangoria@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20180313125603.19819-6-ravi.bangoria@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20180315142120.GA19218@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180315142120.GA19218@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 03/15, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > +static struct vm_area_struct *
> > +sdt_find_vma(struct mm_struct *mm, struct trace_uprobe *tu)
> > +{
> > +	struct vm_area_struct *tmp;
> > +
> > +	for (tmp = mm->mmap; tmp != NULL; tmp = tmp->vm_next)
> > +		if (sdt_valid_vma(tu, tmp))
> > +			return tmp;
> > +
> > +	return NULL;
>
> I can't understand the logic... Lets ignore sdt_valid_vma() for now.
> The caller has uprobe_map_info, why it can't simply do
> vma = find_vma(uprobe_map_info->vaddr)? and then check sdt_valid_vma().

Note to mention that sdt_find_vma() can return NULL but the callers do
vma_offset_to_vaddr(vma) without any check.

Oleg.