On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 11:42:50AM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Thu 2017-08-17 12:01:33, Joe Lawrence wrote:
> > On 08/17/2017 10:05 AM, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > >> diff --git a/kernel/livepatch/shadow.c b/kernel/livepatch/shadow.c
> > >> new file mode 100644
> > >> index 000000000000..0ebd4b635e4f
> > >> --- /dev/null
> > >> +++ b/kernel/livepatch/shadow.c
> > >> +/**
> > >> + * klp_shadow_match() - verify a shadow variable matches given <obj, id>
> > >> + * @shadow: shadow variable to match
> > >> + * @obj: pointer to parent object
> > >> + * @id: data identifier
> > >> + *
> > >> + * Return: true if the shadow variable matches.
> > >> + *
> > >> + * Callers should hold the klp_shadow_lock.
> > >> + */
> > >> +static inline bool klp_shadow_match(struct klp_shadow *shadow, void *obj,
> > >> + unsigned long id)
> > >> +{
> > >> + return shadow->obj == obj && shadow->id == id;
> > >> +}
> > >
> > > Do we really need this function? It is called only in situations
> > > where shadow->obj == obj is always true. Especially the use in
> > > klp_shadow_detach_all() is funny because we pass shadow->obj as
> > > the shadow parameter.
> >
> > Personal preference. Abstracting out all of the routines that operated
> > on the shadow variables (setting up, comparison) did save some code
> > lines and centralized these common bits.
>
> I take this back. We actually need to check obj because different
> objects might have the same hash.
>
> I think that I did the same mistake also the last time. I hope that
> I will be able to fix this in my mind faster than "never" vs. "newer"
> typo that I do for years.
It's an easy mistake to make. hash_for_each_possible() is not
intuitive, IMO. Maybe some brave soul should fix it.
--
Josh
--
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
