linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH perf/core 01/11] uprobes: Add unique flag to uprobe consumer

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: <20250903104933.GB18799@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2025 12:49:33 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	x86@...nel.org, Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
	Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
	Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH perf/core 01/11] uprobes: Add unique flag to uprobe
 consumer

On 09/02, Jiri Olsa wrote:
>
> +static bool consumer_can_add(struct list_head *head, struct uprobe_consumer *uc)
> +{
> +	/* Uprobe has no consumer, we can add any. */
> +	if (list_empty(head))
> +		return true;
> +	/* Uprobe has consumer/s, we can't add unique one. */
> +	if (uc->is_unique)
> +		return false;
> +	/*
> +	 * Uprobe has consumer/s, we can add nother consumer only if the
> +	 * current consumer is not unique.
> +	 **/
> +	return !list_first_entry(head, struct uprobe_consumer, cons_node)->is_unique;
> +}

Since you are going to send V2 anyway... purely cosmetic and subjective nit,
but somehow I can't resist,

	bool consumer_can_add(struct list_head *head, struct uprobe_consumer *new)
	{
		struct uprobe_consumer *old = list_first_entry_or_null(...);

		return !old || (!old->exclusive && !new->exclusive);
	}

looks a bit more readable to me. Please ignore if you like your version more.

Oleg.