On 4.09.2024 8:55 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 05:31:14PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote: >>> >>> There are a few things which we could do: >>> >>> 1) Returning -EPROBE_DEFER to an ioctl or something besides a probe() >>> This is a bug right? -EPROBE_DEFER is basically kernel internal for probe() >>> functions. It tried to write this but it was complicated so I gave up. >> >> Maybe call_tree.pl can somehow be used with an if name[-5:] == "probe" >> or something along those lines.. >> > > I wrote the call_tree.pl script before I had the database. These days I tend to > use the database instead. > > I've implemented this check but it only looks at ioctls. I'll test it tonight. > >>> >>> 2) Printing an error message for -EPROBE_DEFER warnings >>> I've written this check and I can test it tonight. >>> > > I've done this. See the attached check and the dont_print.list file attached. > The line numbers are based on linux next. The false positives from here are > pretty harmless because calling dev_err_probe() is fine. > >>> 3) Not propagating the -EPROBE_DEFER returns >>> This shouldn't be too hard to write. >>> > > I've done this too. The false positives from this could be bad, because we only > want to propagate -EPROBE_DEFER back from probe() functions. > > See propagate.list. This is great work, thank you Dan! Konrad
