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: <20170525080724.GA14467@krava>
Date:   Thu, 25 May 2017 10:07:24 +0200
From:   Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To:     David Carrillo-Cisneros <davidcc@...gle.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, Simon Que <sque@...omium.org>,
        Wang Nan <wangnan0@...wei.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        He Kuang <hekuang@...wei.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/13] perf header: add a buffer to struct feat_fd

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 12:48:50AM -0700, David Carrillo-Cisneros wrote:

SNIP

> +
> +	memcpy(addr, fd->buf + fd->offset, size);
> +	fd->offset += size;
>  
> -	if (ret != (ssize_t)size)
> -		return ret < 0 ? (int)ret : -1;
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> @@ -187,6 +215,10 @@ static char *do_read_string(struct feat_fd *fd)
>  static int write_tracing_data(struct feat_fd *fd,
>  			      struct perf_evlist *evlist)
>  {
> +	if (fd->buf) {
> +		pr_err("Unsupported write_tracing_data to memory buffer.\n");
> +		return -1;
> +	}

could those messsages mention the pipe mode, this one
does not give clue it's pipe mode related

also together with your following patches, this condition
should never hit right? more like the assert stuff..
WARN_ON/WARN_ON_ONCE maybe

thanks,
jirka

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ