Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 21 Jun 2022 08:56:55 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] tracing: eprobe: remove duplicate is_good_name() operation | From | Linyu Yuan <> |
| |
hi Tom,
On 6/21/2022 2:38 AM, Tom Zanussi wrote: > Hi Linyu, > > On Tue, 2022-06-14 at 08:48 +0800, Linyu Yuan wrote: >> hi Tom, >> >> On 6/14/2022 5:01 AM, Tom Zanussi wrote: >>> Hi Linhu, >>> >>> On Thu, 2022-06-02 at 20:10 +0800, Linyu Yuan wrote: >>>> traceprobe_parse_event_name() already validate group and event >>>> name, >>>> there is no need to call is_good_name() after it. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Linyu Yuan <quic_linyyuan@quicinc.com> >>>> --- >>>> v2: drop v1 change as it is NACK. >>>> add it to remove duplicate is_good_name(). >>>> v3: move it as first patch. >>>> v4: no change >>>> >>>> kernel/trace/trace_eprobe.c | 4 ---- >>>> 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_eprobe.c >>>> b/kernel/trace/trace_eprobe.c >>>> index 7d44785..17d64e3 100644 >>>> --- a/kernel/trace/trace_eprobe.c >>>> +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_eprobe.c >>>> @@ -878,16 +878,12 @@ static int __trace_eprobe_create(int argc, >>>> const char *argv[]) >>>> sanitize_event_name(buf1); >>>> event = buf1; >>>> } >>>> - if (!is_good_name(event) || !is_good_name(group)) >>>> - goto parse_error; >>> traceprobe_parse_event_name() is only called if (event). In the >>> !event case, wouldn't the is_good_name() checks still be needed >>> (since >>> in that case buf1 is assigned to event)? >> when user input no event name, it will generate event name from >> second >> SYSTEM.EVENT, >> >> and it will validate with following traceprobe_parse_event_name(). >> >> > Right, but that happens in your second patch '[PATCH v5 2/3] tracing: > auto generate event name when create a group of events', not this one. > > So if you apply only this patch, the !event case will assign event but > it will remain unchecked when used later in this function. > > It would make more sense to remove this check in patch 2/3 along with > the code that does the generating... thanks, will do like this. > >> ( >> >> if you agree, i will send a new version to update a minor issue in >> second patch, >> >> >> sys_event = argv[1]; >> - ret = traceprobe_parse_event_name(&sys_event, &sys_name, >> buf2, >> - sys_event - argv[1]); >> - if (ret || !sys_name) >> + ret = traceprobe_parse_event_name(&sys_event, &sys_name, >> buf2, 0); >> + if (!sys_event || !sys_name) >> goto parse_error; >> >> ) >> >>>> >>>> sys_event = argv[1]; >>>> ret = traceprobe_parse_event_name(&sys_event, &sys_name, >>>> buf2, >>>> sys_event - argv[1]); >>>> if (ret || !sys_name) >>>> goto parse_error; >>>> - if (!is_good_name(sys_event) || !is_good_name(sys_name)) >>>> - goto parse_error; >>> I agree this one isn't needed. > But keep this one in this patch, since it's useful on its own as a > standalone cleanup regardless of whether or not patch 2/3 gets merged. > > Tom > >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Tom >>> >>>> >>>> mutex_lock(&event_mutex); >>>> event_call = find_and_get_event(sys_name, sys_event);
| |