On Wed 2017-06-14 08:17:44, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 02:59:13PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +void klp_shadow_detach(void *obj, char *var)
> > > +{
> > > + unsigned long flags;
> > > + struct klp_shadow *shadow;
> > > +
> > > + spin_lock_irqsave(&klp_shadow_lock, flags);
> > > +
> > > + hash_for_each_possible(klp_shadow_hash, shadow, node,
> > > + (unsigned long)obj) {
> > > + if (shadow->obj == obj && !strcmp(shadow->var, var)) {
> >
> > Do we need to test "shadow->obj == obj" here? If it is not true,
> > there would be a bug in the hashtable implementation or in
> > klp_shadow_attach().
> >
> > Well, it might make sense to add a consistency check:
> >
> > WARN_ON(shadow->obj != obj);
> >
>
> It would make sense if hash_for_each_possible() worked that way, but for
> some reason it doesn't. :-/ It gives you all the hash collisions.
I see. Shame on me. The original code makes perfect sense then.
Best Regards,
Petr
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe live-patching" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
