linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] tracing: eprobe: remove duplicate is_good

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: <9a7e0b6087540c9f868d60cbfc88ccefa8070a1b.camel@kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 13 Jun 2022 16:01:49 -0500
From:   Tom Zanussi <zanussi@...nel.org>
To:     Linyu Yuan <quic_linyyuan@...cinc.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] tracing: eprobe: remove duplicate is_good_name()
 operation

Hi Linhu,

On Thu, 2022-06-02 at 20:10 +0800, Linyu Yuan wrote:
> traceprobe_parse_event_name() already validate group and event name,
> there is no need to call is_good_name() after it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Linyu Yuan <quic_linyyuan@...cinc.com>
> ---
> v2: drop v1 change as it is NACK.
>     add it to remove duplicate is_good_name().
> v3: move it as first patch.
> v4: no change
> 
>  kernel/trace/trace_eprobe.c | 4 ----
>  1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_eprobe.c
> b/kernel/trace/trace_eprobe.c
> index 7d44785..17d64e3 100644
> --- a/kernel/trace/trace_eprobe.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_eprobe.c
> @@ -878,16 +878,12 @@ static int __trace_eprobe_create(int argc,
> const char *argv[])
>                 sanitize_event_name(buf1);
>                 event = buf1;
>         }
> -       if (!is_good_name(event) || !is_good_name(group))
> -               goto parse_error;

traceprobe_parse_event_name() is only called if (event).  In the
!event case, wouldn't the is_good_name() checks still be needed (since
in that case buf1 is assigned to event)?

>  
>         sys_event = argv[1];
>         ret = traceprobe_parse_event_name(&sys_event, &sys_name,
> buf2,
>                                           sys_event - argv[1]);
>         if (ret || !sys_name)
>                 goto parse_error;
> -       if (!is_good_name(sys_event) || !is_good_name(sys_name))
> -               goto parse_error;

I agree this one isn't needed.

Thanks,

Tom

>  
>         mutex_lock(&event_mutex);
>         event_call = find_and_get_event(sys_name, sys_event);