linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/17] tools lib traceevent: Add state member to struct trace

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]

Date:	Tue, 14 Jan 2014 21:56:55 -0500
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Cc:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@....com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/17] tools lib traceevent: Add state member to struct
 trace_seq

On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 11:49:28 +0900
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org> wrote:

> Hi Steve,
> 
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 21:00:58 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 10:45:24 +0900
> > Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> >>  
> >> @@ -32,8 +33,9 @@
> >>  #define TRACE_SEQ_POISON	((void *)0xdeadbeef)
> >>  #define TRACE_SEQ_CHECK(s)						\
> >>  do {									\
> >> -	if ((s)->buffer == TRACE_SEQ_POISON)			\
> >> -		die("Usage of trace_seq after it was destroyed");	\
> >> +	if (WARN_ONCE((s)->buffer == TRACE_SEQ_POISON,			\
> >> +		      "Usage of trace_seq after it was destroyed"))	\
> >> +		(s)->state = TRACE_SEQ__BUFFER_POISONED;		\
> >>  } while (0)
> >>  
> >> @@ -189,9 +205,15 @@ int trace_seq_putc(struct trace_seq *s, unsigned char c)
> >>  {
> >>  	TRACE_SEQ_CHECK(s);
> >>  
> >> +	if (s->state != TRACE_SEQ__GOOD)
> >> +		return 0;
> >> +
> >
> > Instead of adding all of these, we can extend the macro
> > TRACE_SEQ_CHECK() which does a
> > 	if (s->state != TRACE_SEQ__GOOD)
> > 		return;
> >
> > and a TRACE_SEQ_CHECK_RET() that does a return 0;
> 
> Oh, it looks better.  But I'd like to TRACE_SEQ_CHECK() as is for some
> cases.  How about this?
> 
> 

Looks good to me.

Acked-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>

I'll try to look at the rest of the patches tomorrow.

-- Steve


--
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/