linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 20 Jun 2022 09:03:31 +0800
From:   Linyu Yuan <quic_linyyuan@...cinc.com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
CC:     Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Tom Zanussi <zanussi@...nel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] tracing: eprobe: remove duplicate is_good_name()
 operation

hi tom,

On 6/18/2022 9:49 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2022 09:04:56 +0800
> Linyu Yuan <quic_linyyuan@...cinc.com> wrote:
>
>> traceprobe_parse_event_name() already validate group and event name,
>> there is no need to call is_good_name() after it.
>>
>> Acked-by: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org>
>> 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
>> v5: add Acked-by tag
>>
>>   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;
>>   
> Tom replied that the above may be an issue. You ignored his response.
>
> -- Steve
>
i reply his mail in V4 
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/d14f0409-351f-873e-b7ca-82ff444bf809@quicinc.com/,

form my view, i think it is safe, in !event case Tom mentioned, we will 
generate event from SYSTEM.EVENT

which is verified by traceprobe_parse_event_name().


Tom, could you review it again ?

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