linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/14] tools lib traceevent: Get rid of malloc_or_die() in show

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: <87vbywi5j0.fsf@sejong.aot.lge.com>
Date:	Wed, 11 Dec 2013 09:40:35 +0900
From:	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/14] tools lib traceevent: Get rid of malloc_or_die() in show_error()

On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 14:30:18 +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 14:01:44 +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 Dec 2013 21:14:10 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>>> On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 11:03:44 +0900
>>> Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> What about returning error code rather than string?  This way we won't
>>>> worry about the allocation of the error string itself.
>>>> 
>>>> But the downside of it is loosing a positional info of the error.
>>>> Hmm.. what about using a static buffer in pevent for it then?
>>>
>>> A static buffer may be the solution. Never need to worry about
>>> allocating it on error, as it will already be allocated. And we can add
>>> APIs to print it nicely.
>>>
>>> Perhaps call it
>>>
>>> 	pevent->filter_error_buffer
>>>
>>> ?
>
> Hmm.. thinking about it twice, if it's only for filter functions
> wouldn't it be better moving it to event_filter rather than pevent?
>
> 	filter->error_buffer
>

One more thinking, if we agree on converting to return error code, does
pevent_filter_add_filter_str() also need to be changed not to receive
the third "error_str" argument?

And should we extend the error code to include the return value of
pevent_filter_match() too?  If not, it seems we need to pass another
argument to receive the actual error code in case of FILTER_ERROR.

I'm saying these here since they might require interface/signature
change so will affect existing users like trace-cmd.

Thanks,
Namhyung
--
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/