Commit b64b0077 authored by Oleg Nesterov's avatar Oleg Nesterov

uprobes/tracing: Introduce is_trace_uprobe_enabled()

probe_event_enable/disable() check tu->consumer != NULL to avoid the
wrong uprobe_register/unregister().

We are going to kill this pointer and "struct uprobe_trace_consumer",
so we add the new helper, is_trace_uprobe_enabled(), which can rely
on TP_FLAG_TRACE/TP_FLAG_PROFILE instead.

Note: the current logic doesn't look optimal, it is not clear why
TP_FLAG_TRACE/TP_FLAG_PROFILE are mutually exclusive, we will probably
change this later.

Also kill the unused TP_FLAG_UPROBE.
Signed-off-by: default avatarOleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Acked-by: default avatarSrikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
parent 7e4e28c5
......@@ -66,7 +66,6 @@
#define TP_FLAG_TRACE 1
#define TP_FLAG_PROFILE 2
#define TP_FLAG_REGISTERED 4
#define TP_FLAG_UPROBE 8
/* data_rloc: data relative location, compatible with u32 */
......
......@@ -539,12 +539,17 @@ print_uprobe_event(struct trace_iterator *iter, int flags, struct trace_event *e
return TRACE_TYPE_PARTIAL_LINE;
}
static inline bool is_trace_uprobe_enabled(struct trace_uprobe *tu)
{
return tu->flags & (TP_FLAG_TRACE | TP_FLAG_PROFILE);
}
static int probe_event_enable(struct trace_uprobe *tu, int flag)
{
struct uprobe_trace_consumer *utc;
int ret = 0;
if (tu->consumer)
if (is_trace_uprobe_enabled(tu))
return -EINTR;
utc = kzalloc(sizeof(struct uprobe_trace_consumer), GFP_KERNEL);
......@@ -568,7 +573,7 @@ static int probe_event_enable(struct trace_uprobe *tu, int flag)
static void probe_event_disable(struct trace_uprobe *tu, int flag)
{
if (!tu->consumer)
if (!is_trace_uprobe_enabled(tu))
return;
uprobe_unregister(tu->inode, tu->offset, &tu->consumer->cons);
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment