On Mon 2018-04-09 15:53:03, Miroslav Benes wrote: > > > + * see klp_init_object_loaded(). > > > + */ > > > + if (!func->new_func && !func->nop) > > > return -EINVAL; > > > > > > > > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&func->stack_node); > > > @@ -742,6 +920,9 @@ static int klp_init_object_loaded(struct klp_patch *patch, > > > return -ENOENT; > > > } > > > > > > + if (func->nop) > > > + func->new_func = (void *)func->old_addr; > > > + > > > > These changes make it more obvious that 'new_func' isn't quite the right > > name. It should really be 'new_addr' IMO. > > I think we wanted to point out the difference from old_addr which is > initialized with the symbol name while new_func is initialized with the > new function itself (function pointer). I agree though that it looks > awkward in this context and I'm not against changing it to new_addr. I am fine with the rename. I was confused by "new_func" several times in the past. "new_addr" makes it clear that we are setting an address in compare with the name in "old_name". > Petr, could you also add a note to the changelog why we need to setup > new_func for nop functions, please? It's not obvious because of the hack > in klp_ftrace_handler() > (klp_cancel_transition()->...->klp_check_stack_func() needs it). Yup. 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
