linux-kernel - Re: Fwd: uprobes: register/unregister probes.

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: <20111124145139.GK28065@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Thu, 24 Nov 2011 20:21:39 +0530
From:	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...k.frob.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
	Anton Arapov <anton@...hat.com>,
	Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
	Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	tulasidhard@...il.com
Subject: Re: Fwd: uprobes: register/unregister probes.

* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> [2011-11-24 10:49:59]:

> On Thu, 2011-11-24 at 12:33 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2011-11-18 at 16:37 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > > > +int register_uprobe(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset,
> > > > +                               struct uprobe_consumer *consumer)
> > > > +{
> > > > +       struct uprobe *uprobe;
> > > > +       int ret = -EINVAL;
> > > > +
> > > > +       if (!consumer || consumer->next)
> > > > +               return ret;
> > > > +
> > > > +       inode = igrab(inode);
> > > 
> > > So why are you dealing with !consumer but not with !inode? and why
> > > does
> > > it make sense to allow !consumer at all?
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > I am not sure if I got your comment correctly.
> > 
> > I do check for inode just after the igrab.
> 
> No you don't, you check the return value of igrab(), but you crash hard
> when someone calls register_uprobe(.inode=NULL).
> 

Okay. will add a check for inode before we do the igrab.

> > I am actually not dealing with !consumer.
> > If the consumer is NULL, then we dont have any handler to run so why
> > would we want to register such a probe?
> 
> Why allow someone calling register_uprobe(.consumer=NULL) to begin with?
> That doesn't make any sense.
> 
> > Also if consumer->next is Non-NULL, that means that this consumer was
> > already used.  Reusing the consumer, can result in consumers list getting
> > broken into two.
> 
> Yeah, although at that point why be nice about it? Just but a WARN_ON()
> in or so.
> 

I thought you werent happy with prints and WARN_ON/BUG_ON unless it was
really really necessary. If we were to have a WARN_ON for a wrong
consumer passed, then we would need a warn_On for NULL inode too.

So I think we should leave this as is.

Unless I have commented, I agree to your comments sent in other threads
and will resolve them accordingly.

-- 
Thanks and Regards
Srikar

--
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/