linux/kernel/trace/trace_uprobe.c, branch v3.19

tracing: Deletion of an unnecessary check before iput()

2014-11-19T21:28:45Z

The iput() function tests whether its argument is NULL and then returns immediately. Thus the test around the call is not needed. This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software. Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/5468F875.7080907@users.sourceforge.net Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt

tracing/uprobes: Do not use return values of trace_seq_printf()

2014-11-19T20:25:45Z

The functions trace_seq_printf() and friends will soon no longer have return values. Using trace_seq_has_overflowed() and trace_handle_return() should be used instead. Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20141114011411.693008134@goodmis.org Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20141115050602.333705855@goodmis.org Reviewed-by: Masami Hiramatsu Acked-by: Srikar Dronamraju Acked-by: Namhyung Kim Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt

trace: Replace single-character seq_puts with seq_putc

2014-11-14T12:55:55Z

Printing a single character to a seqfile might as well be done with seq_putc instead of seq_puts; this avoids a strlen() call and a memory access. It also shaves another few bytes off the generated code. Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1415479332-25944-4-git-send-email-linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt

tracing: Replace seq_printf by simpler equivalents

2014-11-14T02:32:19Z

Using seq_printf to print a simple string or a single character is a lot more expensive than it needs to be, since seq_puts and seq_putc exist. These patches do seq_printf(m, s) -> seq_puts(m, s) seq_printf(m, "%s", s) -> seq_puts(m, s) seq_printf(m, "%c", c) -> seq_putc(m, c) Subsequent patches will simplify further. Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1415479332-25944-2-git-send-email-linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt

tracing/uprobes: Kill the dead TRACE_EVENT_FL_USE_CALL_FILTER logic

2014-07-16T18:25:19Z

alloc_trace_uprobe() sets TRACE_EVENT_FL_USE_CALL_FILTER for unknown reason and this is simply wrong. Fortunately this has no effect because register_uprobe_event() clears call->flags after that. Kill both. This trace_uprobe was kzalloc'ed and we rely on this fact anyway. Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/p/20140715184824.GA20505@redhat.com Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov Acked-by: Srikar Dronamraju Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt

tracing/uprobes: Fix the usage of uprobe_buffer_enable() in probe_event_enable()

2014-06-30T17:22:33Z

The usage of uprobe_buffer_enable() added by dcad1a20 is very wrong, 1. uprobe_buffer_enable() and uprobe_buffer_disable() are not balanced, _enable() should be called only if !enabled. 2. If uprobe_buffer_enable() fails probe_event_enable() should clear tp.flags and free event_file_link. 3. If uprobe_register() fails it should do uprobe_buffer_disable(). Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/p/20140627170146.GA18332@redhat.com Acked-by: Namhyung Kim Acked-by: Srikar Dronamraju Reviewed-by: Masami Hiramatsu Fixes: dcad1a204f72 "tracing/uprobes: Fetch args before reserving a ring buffer" Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt

tracing/uprobes: Kill the bogus UPROBE_HANDLER_REMOVE code in uprobe_dispatcher()

2014-06-30T17:22:23Z

I do not know why dd9fa555d7bb "tracing/uprobes: Move argument fetching to uprobe_dispatcher()" added the UPROBE_HANDLER_REMOVE, but it looks wrong. OK, perhaps it makes sense to avoid store_trace_args() if the tracee is nacked by uprobe_perf_filter(). But then we should kill the same code in uprobe_perf_func() and unify the TRACE/PROFILE filtering (we need to do this anyway to mix perf/ftrace). Until then this code actually adds the pessimization because uprobe_perf_filter() will be called twice and return T in likely case. Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/p/20140627170143.GA18329@redhat.com Acked-by: Namhyung Kim Acked-by: Srikar Dronamraju Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt

tracing/uprobes: Revert "Support mix of ftrace and perf"

2014-06-30T17:21:58Z

This reverts commit 43fe98913c9f67e3b523615ee3316f9520a623e0. This patch is very wrong. Firstly, this change leads to unbalanced uprobe_unregister(). Just for example, # perf probe -x /lib/libc.so.6 syscall # echo 1 >> /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/events/probe_libc/enable # perf record -e probe_libc:syscall whatever after that uprobe is dead (unregistered) but the user of ftrace/perf can't know this, and it looks as if nobody hits this probe. This would be easy to fix, but there are other reasons why it is not simple to mix ftrace and perf. If nothing else, they can't share the same ->consumer.filter. This is fixable too, but probably we need to fix the poorly designed uprobe_register() interface first. At least "register" and "apply" should be clearly separated. Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/p/20140627170136.GA18319@redhat.com Cc: Tom Zanussi Cc: "zhangwei(Jovi)" Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # v3.14 Acked-by: Namhyung Kim Acked-by: Srikar Dronamraju Reviewed-by: Masami Hiramatsu Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt

Merge branch 'perf/kprobes' into perf/core

2014-06-05T10:26:50Z

Conflicts: arch/x86/kernel/traps.c The kprobes enhancements are fully cooked, ship them upstream. Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar

uprobes/tracing: Fix uprobe_perf_open() on uprobe_apply() failure

2014-04-30T17:10:42Z

uprobe_perf_open()->uprobe_apply() can fail, but this error is wrongly ignored. Change uprobe_perf_open() to do uprobe_perf_close() and return the error code in this case. Change uprobe_perf_close() to propogate the error from uprobe_apply() as well, although it should not fail. Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov Acked-by: Steven Rostedt Acked-by: Srikar Dronamraju