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]

Date:   Mon, 20 May 2019 20:12:48 +0530
From:   "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/4] x86/ftrace: Fix use of flags in
 ftrace_replace_code()

Hi Steven,

Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 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?

Thanks, that definitely helps make things clearer. A very small nit from 
your first patch -- it would be good to also convert the calls to 
ftrace_check_record() to use 'true' or 'false' for the 'update' field.

I will test my series in more detail and post a v1.


- Naveen