[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20211118093032.31c06b11@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2021 09:30:32 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Nikita Yushchenko <nikita.yushchenko@...tuozzo.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing: fix va_list breakage in trace_check_vprintf()
On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 07:57:33 +0300
Nikita Yushchenko <nikita.yushchenko@...tuozzo.com> wrote:
> What I don't like here is - trace_check_vprintf() will still extract wrong positional arguments, and use
> the result as part of it's logic.
>
> Although with your change such use becomes a no-op, this is unintuitive and can turn easily into real
> problems with future changes.
That trace_check_vprintf() is just full of unintuitive logic ;-)
Which is why I prefer to keep any remnants of that code in that code and
not spread it around.
>
> And, the above comment is inexact... why we can't test? We can, testing code does no depend on
> iter->seq. What we can't is - reliably extract str to test.
>
> If testing seq->full condition is preferred over forcibly consuming args from va_list, then such a test
> shall be done before trace_check_vprintf() tries to use va_arg(). Will submit a patch doing that.
I'm happy with that patch, but can you please resend it as a top level
patch and not a reply, otherwise my patchwork doesn't catch it and my
scripts will not work on it.
Thanks,
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists