linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 2/4] x86/ftrace: Fix use of flags in ftrace_replace

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: <20190520094410.772443df@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Mon, 20 May 2019 09:44:10 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/4] x86/ftrace: Fix use of flags in
 ftrace_replace_code()

On Mon, 20 May 2019 09:13:20 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:


> > I haven't yet tested this patch on x86, but this looked wrong so sending 
> > this as a RFC.  
> 
> This code has been through a bit of updates, and I need to go through
> and clean it up. I'll have to take a look and convert "int" to "bool"
> so that "enable" is not confusing.
> 
> Thanks, I think I'll try to do a clean up first, and then this patch
> shouldn't "look wrong" after that.
> 

I'm going to apply the attached two patches. There may be some
conflicts between yours here and these, but nothing that Linus can't
figure out. Do you feel more comfortable with this code, if these
patches are applied?

-- Steve

View attachment "0001-ftrace-Make-enable-and-update-parameters-bool-when-a.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (4287 bytes)

View attachment "0002-x86-ftrace-Make-enable-parameter-bool-where-applicab.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (1760 bytes)