linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/12] perf/breakpoint: Split attribute parse and commit

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 24 May 2018 11:56:01 +1000
From:   Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To:     Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel.opensrc@...il.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Chris Zankel <chris@...kel.net>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/12] perf/breakpoint: Split attribute parse and commit

Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org> writes:

> diff --git a/kernel/events/hw_breakpoint.c b/kernel/events/hw_breakpoint.c
> index 6e28d28..51320c2 100644
> --- a/kernel/events/hw_breakpoint.c
> +++ b/kernel/events/hw_breakpoint.c
> @@ -424,19 +443,22 @@ static int validate_hw_breakpoint(struct perf_event *bp)
>  
>  int register_perf_hw_breakpoint(struct perf_event *bp)
>  {
> -	int ret;
> +	struct arch_hw_breakpoint hw;
> +	int err;
>  
> -	ret = reserve_bp_slot(bp);
> -	if (ret)
> -		return ret;
> +	err = reserve_bp_slot(bp);
> +	if (err)
> +		return err;
>  
> -	ret = validate_hw_breakpoint(bp);
> -
> -	/* if arch_validate_hwbkpt_settings() fails then release bp slot */
> -	if (ret)
> +	err = hw_breakpoint_parse(bp, &bp->attr, &hw);

Is there a good reason we pass bp and bp->attr? (I assume so)

That added to the confusion in the existing code I think.

cheers