linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] [PATCH v2 0/3] [PATCH v2 0/3] net, mac80211, kernel: enable KCOV remote coverage collection for 802.11 frame handling

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:   Sun, 11 Oct 2020 12:37:29 +0200
From:   Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>
To:     Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc:     Aleksandr Nogikh <a.nogikh@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, kuba@...nel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
        Aleksandr Nogikh <nogikh@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] [PATCH v2 0/3] [PATCH v2 0/3] net, mac80211,
 kernel: enable KCOV remote coverage collection for 802.11 frame handling

On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 7:13 PM Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 9 October 2020 19:01:59 CEST, Aleksandr Nogikh <a.nogikh@...il.com> wrote:
>
> >This patch series conflicts with another proposed patch
> >http://lkml.kernel.org/r/223901affc7bd759b2d6995c2dbfbdd0a29bc88a.1602248029.git.andreyknvl@google.com
> >One of these patches needs to be rebased once the other one is merged.
>
>
> Maybe that other patch shouldn't do things that way though, and add new API (which the existing one could call with some kind of "all contexts" argument) instead, so it's only necessary to specify the context (mask?) where its actually needed (the few places in usb or e whatever)?
>
> Surely that would also look less tedious in the mac80211 code, for example.
>
> And if you ever fix the nesting issue you'd have fewer places to modify again.

Hi Johannes,

I initially hesitated to do that, as it would multiply the number of
kcov callbacks. But perhaps you're right and a clean API look
outweighs the rest. I will do this in v3.

Thanks!