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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 19:42:55 +0100 From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> To: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk> Cc: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Anton Arapov <anton@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] uprobes: Use file_inode() On 03/17, Al Viro wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 07:00:36PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > Cleanup. Now that we have f_inode/file_inode() we can use it > > instead of ->f_mapping->host. > > No. This is *not* guaranteed to be the same thing in general; note that > e.g. for block devices ->f_mapping->host is *not* equal to file_inode(). Yes, > It probably is valid in this particular case, And yes (I think). In fact I think ->f_mode is "more correct" in this case. Say, if this uprobe was created by create_trace_uprobe() we use d_inode, and uprobe_mmap/etc uses file_inode() only to compare this pointer with uprobe->inode. But I'll try to recheck, and: > but at the very least you > need to explain that in commit message, OK. Will do, thanks. Oleg. -- 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