[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090412100450.GB3023@elte.hu>
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 12:04:50 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>, Tom Zanussi <tzanussi@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] tracing/filters: allow user to specify a filter
val to be string
* Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:
> Hi Li,
>
> On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 03:53:05PM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
> > Suppose we would like to trace all tasks named '123', but this
> > will fail:
> > # echo 'parent_comm == 123' > events/sched/sched_process_fork/filter
> > bash: echo: write error: Invalid argument
> >
> > With this patch, we allow it by:
> > # echo 'parent_comm == \123' > events/sched/sched_process_fork/filter
> > # cat events/sched/sched_process_fork/filter
> > parent_comm == 123
>
> Well, IMHO, it would be rather better to just echo
> 'parent_comm == 123' and let it answer depending of which
> filter_pred_*() callback we have for the concerned field.
>
>
> The culprit is this part in filter_parse():
>
> pred->val = simple_strtoull(val_str, &tmp, 10);
> if (tmp == val_str) {
> pred->str_val = kstrdup(val_str, GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!pred->str_val)
> return -ENOMEM;
> }
>
> The idea would be to not anymore base the check on simple_strtoull to
> guess whether this is a number or a string, making it act subsequently
> to this assumption, which is not the good assumption we must base our
> parsing yet.
>
> Instead, we could let filter_parse only do the job of extracting the tokens
> and then fill the whole pred struct without yet bothering about the type
> of the value.
>
> Thereafter we may defer the real value type checking on filter_add_pred()
> depending on the type of the concerned field:
>
> if (is_string_field()) {
> add it as a string value;
> } else {
> do the check with simple_strtoull
> looks good? Then go to the number size switch....
> ...
> }
>
> You see?
>
> I think it would be a saner basis of parsing.
Agreed. The user input itself is unambigously parse-able -
and we should not work around parsing limitations by
complicating the user input.
The failure situation that Li found should obviously be
fixed.
Ingo
--
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