linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] gcov: add gcov profiling infrastructure

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]

Message-ID: <4A27853F.8060109@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Thu, 04 Jun 2009 10:26:39 +0200
From:	Peter Oberparleiter <oberpar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, andi@...stfloor.org,
	ying.huang@...el.com, W.Li@....COM, michaele@....ibm.com,
	mingo@...e.hu, heicars2@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	mschwid2@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] gcov: add gcov profiling infrastructure

Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 17:26:22 +0200
> Peter Oberparleiter <oberpar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
>>> Right - the sscanf would make sense if kernel parameters could contain 
>>> spaces (in that case it catches <number><blanks><garbage> input) which 
>>> it can't so strtoul() would indeed make more sense. I'll prepare an 
>>> updated patch and send it out later today.
>> See below for the updated patch that uses strtoul instead of sscanf.
>> This patch replaces kernel-constructor-support.patch in the -mm tree:
> 
> umm, no it doesn't.  I get the below incremental patch, against
> gcov-add-gcov-profiling-infrastructure.patch:

Ah, right. That answers my question whether further changes should be 
posted as complete or incremental patches.

> --- a/kernel/gcov/fs.c~gcov-add-gcov-profiling-infrastructure-update
> +++ a/kernel/gcov/fs.c
> @@ -70,15 +70,8 @@ static int gcov_persist = 1;
> 
>  static int __init gcov_persist_setup(char *str)
>  {
> -	int val;
> -	char delim;
> -
> -	if (sscanf(str, "%d %c", &val, &delim) != 1) {
> -		pr_warning("invalid gcov_persist parameter '%s'\n", str);
> -		return 0;
> -	}
> -	pr_info("setting gcov_persist to %d\n", val);
> -	gcov_persist = val;
> +	gcov_persist = simple_strtoul(str, NULL, 0);
> +	pr_info("setting gcov_persist to %d\n", gcov_persist);
> 
>  	return 1;
>  }
> _
> 
> arguably we should use strict_strtoul(), but the kernel is a lot less
> fussy about boot parameters than it is with sysfs writes, etc.  If you
> fat-finger your grub.conf, you lose and we don't tell you.

Agreed. Which leads me to another question: is it ok to post many small 
patches for -mm for minor changes like this one (simple_ -> strict_) or 
do you rather prefer these to be collected into somewhat larger patches 
that fix multiple minor issues?

--
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/