linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tracing/filters: Improve subsystem filter

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: <20090720012430.GA5172@nowhere>
Date:	Sun, 19 Jul 2009 21:24:38 -0400
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:	Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Tom Zanussi <tzanussi@...il.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing/filters: Improve subsystem filter

On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 08:59:18AM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
> >> -static void filter_free_subsystem_preds(struct event_subsystem *system)
> >> +/*
> >> + * flag == 0: remove all events' filter
> >> + * flag == 1: clear filter->no_reset
> >> + * flag == 2: remove all preds with no_reset == false
> >> + */
> > 
> > Once an option overlap the boolean binary range, it's better
> > to start thinking about an enum type, for better self-explaining code.
> > 
> 
> Ok.
> 
> I was lazy to think of proper names for those enums..
> 
> >> +static void filter_free_subsystem_preds(struct event_subsystem *system,
> >> +					int flag)
> >>  {
> >>  	struct ftrace_event_call *call;
> >>  
> >> @@ -428,6 +434,14 @@ static void filter_free_subsystem_preds(struct event_subsystem *system)
> >>  		if (!call->define_fields)
> >>  			continue;
> >>  
> >> +		if (flag == 1) {
> >> +			call->filter->no_reset = false;
> >> +			continue;
> >> +		}
> >> +
> >> +		if (flag == 2 && call->filter->no_reset == true)
> > 
> > Or simply if (flag == 2 && call->filter->no_reset)
> > 
> 
> Sure.
> 
> >> +			continue;
> >> +
> >>  		if (!strcmp(call->system, system->name)) {
> >>  			filter_disable_preds(call);
> >>  			remove_filter_string(call->filter);
> >> @@ -529,7 +543,8 @@ static filter_pred_fn_t select_comparison_fn(int op, int field_size,
> >>  
> >>  static int filter_add_pred(struct filter_parse_state *ps,
> >>  			   struct ftrace_event_call *call,
> >> -			   struct filter_pred *pred)
> >> +			   struct filter_pred *pred,
> >> +			   bool apply)
> > 
> > 
> > bool dry_run sounds perhaps more intuitive for what is happening there.
> 
> I guess you "try_run". ;)
> 
> > Because "apply" is surprising in a "add_thing" function, it's like
> > a field to confirm that we know what what we are doing :)
> > 
> > (May be I start to become a PITA with my naming worries, especially
> > since I'm usually not good at it in my patches :)
> > 
> 
> I'll take "try_run". Naming is often hard for me.


No I really meant "dry run"
"Try run" is already a function that would implicitly fit into
every function :)

Ie, dry run means:

"Behave as if you were truly doing it, just to see if it works.
But don't really do it"


> 
> > Otherwise, the rest looks good.
> > 
> 
> Thanks!

--
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/