On Mon 2017-07-17 17:35:38, Miroslav Benes wrote: > On Thu, 13 Jul 2017, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 11:37:26AM -0400, Joe Lawrence wrote: > > > > > +Brief API summary > > > +----------------- > > > + > > > +See the full API usage docbook notes in the livepatch/shadow.c > > > +implementation. > > > + > > > +An in-kernel hashtable references all of the shadow variables. These > > > +references are stored/retrieved through a <obj, num> key pair. > > > > "num" is rather vague, how about "key"? As Mirek said in the previous version. "obj" is the key for the hash table. Anyway, I agree that "num" is vague and even confusing. I would suggest to use "id". > > (And note, this and some of the other comments also apply to the code as > > well) > > > > > +* The klp_shadow variable data structure encapsulates both tracking > > > +meta-data and shadow-data: > > > + - meta-data > > > + - obj - pointer to original data > > > > Instead of "original data", how about calling it the "parent object"? > > That describes it better to me at least. "Original data" sounds like > > some of the data might be replaced. > > I agree that "original data" does not sound right. However, we use "parent > object" for vmlinux or a module in our code. But I don't have a better > name and "parent object" sounds good. What about "primary object"? I took inspiration from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_table > > > + - num - numerical description of new data > > > > "numerical description of new data" sounds a little confusing, how about > > "unique identifier for new data"? Here we come to the "id" ;-) I wonder if each patch should register its own IDs and the size of the data. The API could shout when anyone wants to use a not yet registered ID or when the same ID with another size is being registered. It might increase security. But I am not sure if it is worth it. > > I'm also not sure about the phrase "new data". Maybe something like > > "new data field" would be more descriptive? Or just "new field"? I > > view it kind of like adding a field to a struct. Not a big deal either > > way. > > > > > +void *klp_shadow_attach(void *obj, unsigned long num, void *new_data, > > > + size_t new_size, gfp_t gfp_flags); > > > > It could be just me, but the "new_" prefixes threw me off a little bit. > > The new is implied anyway. How about just "data" and "size"? > > > > And the same comment for the klp_shadow struct. > > I agree with Josh on all of this. You persuaded me that "data" and "size" make sense after all ;-) new_obj would mean that we replace/copy the entire object. 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
