On Thu, 2011-11-24 at 12:33 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > On Fri, 2011-11-18 at 16:37 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > > +int register_uprobe(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset,
> > > + struct uprobe_consumer *consumer)
> > > +{
> > > + struct uprobe *uprobe;
> > > + int ret = -EINVAL;
> > > +
> > > + if (!consumer || consumer->next)
> > > + return ret;
> > > +
> > > + inode = igrab(inode);
> >
> > So why are you dealing with !consumer but not with !inode? and why
> > does
> > it make sense to allow !consumer at all?
> >
>
>
> I am not sure if I got your comment correctly.
>
> I do check for inode just after the igrab.
No you don't, you check the return value of igrab(), but you crash hard
when someone calls register_uprobe(.inode=NULL).
> I am actually not dealing with !consumer.
> If the consumer is NULL, then we dont have any handler to run so why
> would we want to register such a probe?
Why allow someone calling register_uprobe(.consumer=NULL) to begin with?
That doesn't make any sense.
> Also if consumer->next is Non-NULL, that means that this consumer was
> already used. Reusing the consumer, can result in consumers list getting
> broken into two.
Yeah, although at that point why be nice about it? Just but a WARN_ON()
in or so.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href