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;
From:   Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/9] trace_uprobe: Support SDT markers having reference
 count (semaphore)
To:     Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>
Cc:     oleg@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        rostedt@goodmis.org, 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, jolsa@redhat.com, kan.liang@intel.com,
        kjlx@templeofstupid.com, kstewart@linuxfoundation.org,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, milian.wolff@kdab.com, mingo@redhat.com,
        namhyung@kernel.org, naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        pc@us.ibm.com, tglx@linutronix.de, yao.jin@linux.intel.com,
        fengguang.wu@intel.com, jglisse@redhat.com,
        Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com>
References: <20180417043244.7501-1-ravi.bangoria@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20180417043244.7501-7-ravi.bangoria@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20180504134816.8633a157dd036489d9b0f1db@kernel.org>
 <206e4a16-ae21-7da3-f752-853dc2f51947@linux.ibm.com>
 <f3d066d2-a85a-bd21-d4f9-fc27e59135df@linux.ibm.com>
 <20180508005651.45553d3cf72521481d16b801@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 8 May 2018 15:56:24 +0530
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180508005651.45553d3cf72521481d16b801@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Message-Id: <d3635a76-29cc-887a-4740-89cbc8e768b1@linux.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Masami,

On 05/07/2018 09:26 PM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> On Mon, 7 May 2018 13:51:21 +0530
> Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Masami,
>>
>> On 05/04/2018 07:51 PM, Ravi Bangoria wrote:
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static void sdt_increment_ref_ctr(struct trace_uprobe *tu)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +	struct uprobe_map_info *info;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	uprobe_down_write_dup_mmap();
>>>>> +	info = uprobe_build_map_info(tu->inode->i_mapping,
>>>>> +				tu->ref_ctr_offset, false);
>>>>> +	if (IS_ERR(info))
>>>>> +		goto out;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	while (info) {
>>>>> +		down_write(&info->mm->mmap_sem);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +		if (sdt_find_vma(tu, info->mm, info->vaddr))
>>>>> +			sdt_update_ref_ctr(info->mm, info->vaddr, 1);
>>>> Don't you have to handle the error to map pages here?
>>> Correct.. I think, I've to feedback error code to probe_event_{enable|disable}
>>> and handler failure there.
>> I looked at this. Actually, It looks difficult to feedback errors to
>> probe_event_{enable|disable}, esp. in the mmap() case.
> Hmm, can't you roll that back if sdt_increment_ref_ctr() fails?
> If so, how does sdt_decrement_ref_ctr() work in that case?

Yes, it's easy to rollback in sdt_increment_ref_ctr(). But not much can
be done if trace_uprobe_mmap() fails.

What would be good is, if we can feedback uprobe_mmap() failures
to the perf infrastructure, which can finally be parsed by perf record.
But that should be done as a separate work.

>> Is it fine if we just warn sdt_update_ref_ctr() failures in dmesg? I'm
>> doing this in [PATCH 7]. (Though, it makes more sense to do that in
>> [PATCH 6], will change it in next version).
> Of course we need to warn it at least, but the best is rejecting to
> enable it.

Yes, we can reject it for sdt_increment_ref_ctr() failures.

>> Any better ideas?
>>
>> BTW, same issue exists for normal uprobe. If uprobe_mmap() fails,
>> there is no feedback to trace_uprobe and no warnigns in dmesg as
>> well !! There was a patch by Naveen to warn such failures in dmesg
>> but that didn't go in: https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/9/22/155
> Oops, that's a real bug. It seems the ball is in Naveen's hand.
> Naveen, could you update it according to Oleg's comment, and resend it?
>
>> Also, I'll add a check in sdt_update_ref_ctr() to make sure reference
>> counter never goes to negative incase increment fails but decrement
>> succeeds. OTOH, if increment succeeds but decrement fails, the
>> counter remains >0 but there is no harm as such, except we will
>> execute some unnecessary code.
> I see. Please carefully clarify whether such case is kernel's bug or not.
> I would like to know what the condition causes that uneven behavior.

Sure, will do that.

Thanks,
Ravi