linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 3/6] Uprobes: Support SDT markers having reference count (semaphore)

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, 9 Aug 2018 16:38:28 +0200
From:   Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:     Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        mhiramat@...nel.org, liu.song.a23@...il.com, peterz@...radead.org,
        mingo@...hat.com, acme@...nel.org,
        alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, jolsa@...hat.com,
        namhyung@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        ananth@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, alexis.berlemont@...il.com,
        naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org,
        linux@...linux.org.uk, ralf@...ux-mips.org, paul.burton@...s.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 3/6] Uprobes: Support SDT markers having reference
 count (semaphore)

I need to read this (hopefully final) version carefully. I'll try to do
this before next Monday.

just one note,

On 08/09, Ravi Bangoria wrote:
>
> +static void delayed_uprobe_remove(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct mm_struct *mm)
> +{
> +	struct list_head *pos, *q;
> +	struct delayed_uprobe *du;
> +
> +	if (!uprobe && !mm)
> +		return;
> +
> +	list_for_each_safe(pos, q, &delayed_uprobe_list) {
> +		du = list_entry(pos, struct delayed_uprobe, list);
> +
> +		if (uprobe && mm && du->uprobe == uprobe && du->mm == mm)
> +			delayed_uprobe_delete(du);
> +		else if (!uprobe && du->mm == mm)
> +			delayed_uprobe_delete(du);
> +		else if (!mm && du->uprobe == uprobe)
> +			delayed_uprobe_delete(du);
> +	}

Sorry, I can't resist... this doesn't look very nice. How about

	list_for_each_safe(pos, q, &delayed_uprobe_list) {
		du = list_entry(pos, struct delayed_uprobe, list);

		if (uprobe && du->uprobe != uprobe)
			continue;
		if (mm && du->mm != mm)
			continue;

		delayed_uprobe_delete();
	}

I won't insist, this is cosmetic after all, but please consider this change
in case you will need to send v9.

Oleg.