linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 03/20] rv: Unify DA event handling functions across monitor types

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: <58243003fdba1c06d90576fcfec5096012318a27.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2025 13:30:38 +0200
From: Gabriele Monaco <gmonaco@...hat.com>
To: Nam Cao <namcao@...utronix.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Steven
 Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Tomas Glozar <tglozar@...hat.com>, Juri Lelli <jlelli@...hat.com>, Clark
 Williams <williams@...hat.com>, John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/20] rv: Unify DA event handling functions across
 monitor types

On Thu, 2025-10-02 at 11:14 +0200, Nam Cao wrote:
> Gabriele Monaco <gmonaco@...hat.com> writes:
> > +/*
> > + * da_get_task - return the task associated to the monitor
> > + */
> > +static inline struct task_struct *da_get_task(struct da_monitor *da_mon)
> > +{
> > +	return container_of(da_mon, struct task_struct,
> > rv[task_mon_slot].da_mon);
> > +}
> 
> This function is not used? Maybe later in the series, let me keep looking..

Right, this doesn't belong here, I should add it later..

> 
> >  static inline bool da_handle_start_event(enum events event)
> >  {
> > -	struct da_monitor *da_mon;
> > -
> >  	if (!da_monitor_enabled())
> >  		return 0;
> 
> Can't this part be shared between different monitor types?
> 
> Same for the other handle functions.

Mmh good point, I left it separate because the per-object monitors (later in the
series) do a bit more before calling the __da_handle_* functions (like some
potential allocation).

But it's probably not a big deal to let them do that in any case, considering
da_monitor_enabled() is false only during teardown or with monitoring off, and
in neither case a superfluous allocation should cause problems.

Thanks,
Gabriele