linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 2/2] perf tools: Fix find_perf_probe_point_from

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:	Fri, 6 Nov 2015 06:28:58 +0000
From:	平松雅巳 / HIRAMATU，MASAMI 
	<masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
To:	"'acme@...nel.org'" <acme@...nel.org>
CC:	"'Wang Nan'" <wangnan0@...wei.com>,
	"namhyung@...nel.org" <namhyung@...nel.org>,
	"lizefan@...wei.com" <lizefan@...wei.com>,
	"pi3orama@....com" <pi3orama@....com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"jolsa@...nel.org" <jolsa@...nel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2] perf tools: Fix find_perf_probe_point_from_map()
 which incorrectly returns success

From: acme@...nel.org [mailto:acme@...nel.org]
>
>Em Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 02:08:48PM +0000, 平松雅巳 / HIRAMATU，MASAMI escreveu:
>> From: Wang Nan [mailto:wangnan0@...wei.com]
>> >
>> >It is possible that find_perf_probe_point_from_map() fails to find
>> >symbol but still returns 0 because of an small error when coding:
>> >find_perf_probe_point_from_map() set 'ret' to error code at first,
>> >but also use it to hold return value of
>> >kernel_get_symbol_address_by_name().
>>
>> OK, I didn't expect that there is a symbol which can be found by
>> kernel_get_symbol_address_by_name() but not by __find_kernel_function()...
>
>> Would you have any example of the error?
>>
>> >
>> >This patch resets 'ret' to error even kernel_get_symbol_address_by_name()
>> >success, so if !sym, the whole function returns error correctly.
>>
>> Hmm, that sounds tricky. I'd rather like to add *psym to kernel_get_symbol_address_by_name()
>> to save symbol and don't use __find_kernel_function() instead.
>
>Tricky? I don't think so, suboptimal? possibly, but it fixes an error,
>so should be processed quickly, right? I'm applying his patch and then
>whatever improvement can be done on top.

OK, then I'll send an improvement patch.

Thanks,

>
>- Arnaldo