On Fri 2017-08-18 15:44:29, Nicolai Stange wrote:
> Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> <snip>
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * klp_shadow_get() - retrieve a shadow variable data pointer
> > + * @obj: pointer to parent object
> > + * @id: data identifier
> > + *
> > + * Return: the shadow variable data element, NULL on failure.
> > + */
> > +void *klp_shadow_get(void *obj, unsigned long id)
> > +{
> > + struct klp_shadow *shadow;
> > +
> > + rcu_read_lock();
> > +
> > + hash_for_each_possible_rcu(klp_shadow_hash, shadow, node,
> > + (unsigned long)obj) {
> > +
> > + if (klp_shadow_match(shadow, obj, id)) {
> > + rcu_read_unlock();
> > + return shadow->data;
>
> I had to think a moment about what protects shadow from getting freed by
> a concurrent detach after that rcu_read_unlock(). Then I noticed that if
> obj and the livepatch are alive, then so is shadow, because there
> obviously hasn't been any reason to detach it.
>
> So maybe it would be nice to have an additional comment at
> klp_shadow_detach() that it's the API user's responsibility not to use a
> shadow instance after detaching it...
Good point. In fact, it might make sense to rename the functions:
attach -> create
detach -> destroy
The name detach suggests that the variable is just not connected to
the parent object but that it is still accessible/usable.
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
