linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND][PATCH] tracing: gfp: Remove duplication of recording GFP flags

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250314082534.57ef07c4@batman.local.home>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 08:25:34 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Trace Kernel
 <linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org, Masami Hiramatsu
 <mhiramat@...nel.org>, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Michael Petlan
 <mpetlan@...hat.com>, Veronika Molnarova <vmolnaro@...hat.com>, Suren
 Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, Rasmus Villemoes
 <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>, Andy Shevchenko
 <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>, Tamir Duberstein <tamird@...il.com>,
 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RESEND][PATCH] tracing: gfp: Remove duplication of recording
 GFP flags

On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 12:53:13 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:

> > --- a/include/trace/events/mmflags.h
> > +++ b/include/trace/events/mmflags.h
> > @@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ TRACE_DEFINE_ENUM(___GFP_LAST_BIT);
> >  	gfpflag_string(GFP_DMA32),		\
> >  	gfpflag_string(__GFP_RECLAIM),		\
> >  	TRACE_GFP_FLAGS				\
> > -	{ 0, "none" }
> > +	{ 0, NULL }
> >  
> >  #define show_gfp_flags(flags)						\
> >  	(flags) ? __print_flags(flags, "|", __def_gfpflag_names		\
> > 
> > It seems to be safe because the callers end up the cycle when .name == NULL.
> > 
> > I think that it actually allows to remove similar trailing {} but I am not sure
> > if we want it.  
> 
> Hmm, I could get rid of that last one with this patch. What do you think?

OK, I think this is too hacky, and it only affects tracing if there's a
flag not defined (which never happened so I didn't see this issue).

I'll just go with your approach.

You want to send a formal patch?

-- Steve