On 09/04, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 4, 2025 at 8:02 AM Alexei Starovoitov > <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 4, 2025 at 4:26 AM Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On 09/04, Jiri Olsa wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > ok, got excited too soon.. so you meant getting rid of is_unique > > > > check only for this patch and have just change below.. but keep > > > > the unique/exclusive flag from patch#1 > > > > > > Yes, this is what I meant, > > > > > > > IIUC Andrii would remove the unique flag completely? > > > > > > Lets wait for Andrii... > > > > Not Andrii, but I see only negatives in this extra flag. > > It doesn't add any safety or guardrails. > > No need to pollute uapi with pointless flags. > > +1. I think it's fine to just have something like > > if (unlikely(instruction_pointer(regs) != bp_vaddr)) > goto out; > > after all uprobe callbacks were processed. Even if every single one of > them modify IP, the last one that did that wins. OK. If any consumer can change regs->ip, then I can only repeat: Yes... but what if we there are multiple consumers? The 1st one changes instruction_pointer, the next is unaware. Or it may change regs->ip too... > Others (if they care) > can detect this. How? If the the consumer which changes regs->ip is not the 1st one? That said. If you guys don't see a problem - I won't even try to argue. As I said many times, I have no idea how people actually use uprobes ;) Oleg.
