On 1/16/20 9:01 PM, Petr Mladek wrote: > Dan Carpenter reported suspicious allocations of shadow variables > in the sample module, see > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200107132929.ficffmrm5ntpzcqa@kili.mountain > > The code did not cause a real problem. But it was indeed misleading > and semantically wrong. I got confused several times when cleaning it. > So I decided to split the change into few steps. I hope that > it will help reviewers and future readers. > > The changes of the sample module are basically the same as in the RFC. > In addition, there is a clean up of the module used by the selftest. > > > Petr Mladek (4): > livepatch/sample: Use the right type for the leaking data pointer > livepatch/selftest: Clean up shadow variable names and type > livepatch/samples/selftest: Use klp_shadow_alloc() API correctly > livepatch: Handle allocation failure in the sample of shadow variable > API > > lib/livepatch/test_klp_shadow_vars.c | 119 +++++++++++++++++------------- > samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-fix1.c | 39 ++++++---- > samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-fix2.c | 4 +- > samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-mod.c | 4 +- > 4 files changed, 99 insertions(+), 67 deletions(-) > Reviewed-by: Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- Kamalesh
