| Message ID | 20241010200957.2750179-5-jolsa@kernel.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Delegated to: | BPF |
| Headers | show |
| Series | uprobe, bpf: Add session support | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-PR | fail | merge-conflict |
| netdev/tree_selection | success | Clearly marked for bpf-next, async |
| netdev/apply | fail | Patch does not apply to bpf-next-0 |
On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 1:10 PM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org> wrote: > > As suggested by Andrii make uprobe multi bpf programs to always return 0, > so they can't force uprobe removal. > > Keeping the int return type for uprobe_prog_run, because it will be used > in following session changes. > > Fixes: 89ae89f53d20 ("bpf: Add multi uprobe link") > Suggested-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org> > Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org> > --- > kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c | 5 ++--- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org> > diff --git a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c > index fdab7ecd8dfa..3c1e5a561df4 100644 > --- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c > +++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c > @@ -3209,7 +3209,6 @@ static int uprobe_prog_run(struct bpf_uprobe *uprobe, > struct bpf_prog *prog = link->link.prog; > bool sleepable = prog->sleepable; > struct bpf_run_ctx *old_run_ctx; > - int err = 0; > > if (link->task && !same_thread_group(current, link->task)) > return 0; > @@ -3222,7 +3221,7 @@ static int uprobe_prog_run(struct bpf_uprobe *uprobe, > migrate_disable(); > > old_run_ctx = bpf_set_run_ctx(&run_ctx.run_ctx); > - err = bpf_prog_run(link->link.prog, regs); > + bpf_prog_run(link->link.prog, regs); > bpf_reset_run_ctx(old_run_ctx); > > migrate_enable(); > @@ -3231,7 +3230,7 @@ static int uprobe_prog_run(struct bpf_uprobe *uprobe, > rcu_read_unlock_trace(); > else > rcu_read_unlock(); > - return err; > + return 0; > } > > static bool > -- > 2.46.2 >
diff --git a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c index fdab7ecd8dfa..3c1e5a561df4 100644 --- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c +++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c @@ -3209,7 +3209,6 @@ static int uprobe_prog_run(struct bpf_uprobe *uprobe, struct bpf_prog *prog = link->link.prog; bool sleepable = prog->sleepable; struct bpf_run_ctx *old_run_ctx; - int err = 0; if (link->task && !same_thread_group(current, link->task)) return 0; @@ -3222,7 +3221,7 @@ static int uprobe_prog_run(struct bpf_uprobe *uprobe, migrate_disable(); old_run_ctx = bpf_set_run_ctx(&run_ctx.run_ctx); - err = bpf_prog_run(link->link.prog, regs); + bpf_prog_run(link->link.prog, regs); bpf_reset_run_ctx(old_run_ctx); migrate_enable(); @@ -3231,7 +3230,7 @@ static int uprobe_prog_run(struct bpf_uprobe *uprobe, rcu_read_unlock_trace(); else rcu_read_unlock(); - return err; + return 0; } static bool
As suggested by Andrii make uprobe multi bpf programs to always return 0, so they can't force uprobe removal. Keeping the int return type for uprobe_prog_run, because it will be used in following session changes. Fixes: 89ae89f53d20 ("bpf: Add multi uprobe link") Suggested-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org> --- kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c | 5 ++--- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)