linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tracing/kprobes: Simplify the logic of enable_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]

Message-ID: <20180726164352.tctldcryo4fs3nap@treble>
Date:   Thu, 26 Jul 2018 11:43:52 -0500
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Artem Savkov <asavkov@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing/kprobes: Simplify the logic of
 enable_trace_kprobe()

On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 12:11:52PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 
> [ Note this is applied on top of the other patch to quiet gcc ]
> 
> From: "Steven Rostedt (VMware)" <rostedt@...dmis.org>
> 
> The function enable_trace_kprobe() performs slightly differently if the file
> parameter is passed in as NULL on non-NULL. Instead of checking file twice,
> move the code between the two tests into a static inline helper function to
> make the code easier to follow.
> 
> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180725224728.7b1d5db2@vmware.local.home
> 
> Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@...dmis.org>

The enable_probe() name is a bit confusing, since it's not clear what
the difference is between enable_probe() and enable_trace_kprobe()
without looking at the code.

Maybe call it __enable_trace_kprobe()?

Otherwise it's a definite improvement.

Reviewed-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>

-- 
Josh