[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1229528856.30177.4.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 10:47:36 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
George Spelvin <linux@...izon.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tj@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] globmatch() helper function
On Wed, 2008-12-17 at 16:15 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-12-17 at 14:28 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > "George Spelvin" <linux@...izon.com> writes:
> >
> > Wow, finally a name.
> >
> > > break;
> > > case '*':
> > > if (pat[1] == '\0') /* Optimize trailing * case */
> > > return true;
> > > /* Recurse on each possible tail of str */
> > > while (!globmatch(pat+1, str))
> > > if (!*str++)
> > > return false;
> >
> > I'm uneasy with the unbounded recursion. Sure currently all the users
> > are controlled in kernel source code and expect to put in sane patterns.
> > But if someone ever adds a user controlled glob in some way it will be
> > trivial to crash/overwrite memory with the limited kernel stack.
> > And with such a generalized function it's likely to be used more
> > in the future.
>
> ftrace has a globbing thing in there somewhere as well and that does
> indeed take user input.
>
> Using recursion in kernel code is indeed not recommended, what Andi said
> we have tiny stacks.
ftrace has a very limited glob feature, and requires no recursion.
Basically, we allow:
*match
match*
*match*
We do not allow match*two, that would be the same as match*
I need to look at your code (I would like a generalized glob feature for
user input). Can you accomplish the same with using a loop instead of
recursion?
-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists