From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr0-f199.google.com (mail-wr0-f199.google.com [209.85.128.199]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3A5E6B0003 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 00:26:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wr0-f199.google.com with SMTP id 31so1190537wrr.2 for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 21:26:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com. [148.163.158.5]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y7si1078970edm.292.2018.03.18.21.26.16 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 18 Mar 2018 21:26:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098413.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w2J4O7PY054511 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 00:26:16 -0400 Received: from e06smtp13.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp13.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.109]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2gsxgg3q5w-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA256 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 00:26:15 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp13.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 04:26:13 -0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] trace_uprobe: Support SDT markers having reference count (semaphore) References: <20180313125603.19819-1-ravi.bangoria@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180313125603.19819-6-ravi.bangoria@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180314165943.GA5948@redhat.com> From: Ravi Bangoria Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 09:58:28 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180314165943.GA5948@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US Message-Id: <9cb068f7-0996-6e24-a95b-771006559318@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Oleg Nesterov Cc: mhiramat@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, 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, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, huawei.libin@huawei.com, hughd@google.com, jack@suse.cz, jglisse@redhat.com, jolsa@redhat.com, kan.liang@intel.com, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, kjlx@templeofstupid.com, kstewart@linuxfoundation.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, mhocko@suse.com, milian.wolff@kdab.com, mingo@redhat.com, namhyung@kernel.org, naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com, pc@us.ibm.com, pombredanne@nexb.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, tglx@linutronix.de, tmricht@linux.vnet.ibm.com, willy@infradead.org, yao.jin@linux.intel.com, fengguang.wu@intel.com, Ravi Bangoria Hi Oleg, On 03/14/2018 10:29 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 03/13, Ravi Bangoria wrote: >> +static bool sdt_valid_vma(struct trace_uprobe *tu, struct vm_area_struct *vma) >> +{ >> + unsigned long vaddr = vma_offset_to_vaddr(vma, tu->ref_ctr_offset); >> + >> + return tu->ref_ctr_offset && >> + vma->vm_file && >> + file_inode(vma->vm_file) == tu->inode && >> + vma->vm_flags & VM_WRITE && >> + vma->vm_start <= vaddr && >> + vma->vm_end > vaddr; >> +} > Perhaps in this case a simple > > ref_ctr_offset < vma->vm_end - vma->vm_start > > check without vma_offset_to_vaddr() makes more sense, but I won't insist. > I still don't get this. This seems a comparison between file offset and size of the vma. Shouldn't we need to consider pg_off here? Thanks, Ravi