linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] tracing/user_events: Prepare find/delete for same name events

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: <20240221101721.4e81e9e5@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 10:17:21 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Beau Belgrave <beaub@...ux.microsoft.com>
Cc: mhiramat@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] tracing/user_events: Prepare find/delete for
 same name events

On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 17:50:43 +0000
Beau Belgrave <beaub@...ux.microsoft.com> wrote:

So the patches look good, but since I gave you some updates, I'm now going
to go though "nits". Like grammar and such ;-)

> The current code for finding and deleting events assumes that there will
> never be cases when user_events are registered with the same name, but
> different formats. In the future this scenario will exist to ensure

> user programs can be updated or modify their events and run different
> versions of their programs side-by-side without being blocked.

Can you change the last sentence above. I read it three times and it's
still awkward to understand it. Particularly, the "user programs can be
updated or modify their events". That just doesn't want to compute.

> 
> This change does not yet allow for multi-format events. If user_events
> are registered with the same name but different arguments the programs
> see the same return values as before. This change simply makes it
> possible to easily accomodate for this in future changes.

I think you can drop the "in future changes" part.

> 
> Update find_user_event() to take in argument parameters and register
> flags to accomodate future multi-format event scenarios. Have find
> validate argument matching and return error pointers to cover address
> in use cases, or allocation errors. Update callers to handle error

  "to cover address in use cases" ?

> pointer logic.
> 
> Move delete_user_event() to use hash walking directly now that find has
> changed. Delete all events found that match the register name, stop

"now that find has changed" ?  You mean the "find function"?

> if an error occurs and report back to the user.
> 
> Update user_fields_match() to cover list_empty() scenarios instead of
> each callsite doing it now that find_user_event() uses it directly.

The above is a bit of a run-on sentence.

-- Steve

> 
> Signed-off-by: Beau Belgrave <beaub@...ux.microsoft.com>
> ---