On Thu, 15 May 2025 14:10:58 +0200
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Currently unapply_uprobe takes mmap_read_lock, but it might call
> remove_breakpoint which eventually changes user pages.
>
> Current code writes either breakpoint or original instruction, so
> it can probably go away with that, but with the upcoming change that
> writes multiple instructions on the probed address we need to ensure
> that any update to mm's pages is exclusive.
>
So, this is a bugfix, right?
Thanks,
> Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> kernel/events/uprobes.c | 6 +++---
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/events/uprobes.c b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> index 84ee7b590861..257581432cd8 100644
> --- a/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> +++ b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> @@ -483,7 +483,7 @@ static int __uprobe_write_opcode(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> * @opcode_vaddr: the virtual address to store the opcode.
> * @opcode: opcode to be written at @opcode_vaddr.
> *
> - * Called with mm->mmap_lock held for read or write.
> + * Called with mm->mmap_lock held for write.
> * Return 0 (success) or a negative errno.
> */
> int uprobe_write_opcode(struct arch_uprobe *auprobe, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> @@ -1464,7 +1464,7 @@ static int unapply_uprobe(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct mm_struct *mm)
> struct vm_area_struct *vma;
> int err = 0;
>
> - mmap_read_lock(mm);
> + mmap_write_lock(mm);
> for_each_vma(vmi, vma) {
> unsigned long vaddr;
> loff_t offset;
> @@ -1481,7 +1481,7 @@ static int unapply_uprobe(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct mm_struct *mm)
> vaddr = offset_to_vaddr(vma, uprobe->offset);
> err |= remove_breakpoint(uprobe, vma, vaddr);
> }
> - mmap_read_unlock(mm);
> + mmap_write_unlock(mm);
>
> return err;
> }
> --
> 2.49.0
>
--
Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>
