On 08/16/2017 08:43 AM, Miroslav Benes wrote:
>
>> [ ... snip ... ]
>
> There is a comment above about locking and we do not take the spinlock
> here. That could surprise someone. So I'd keep only klp_shadow_add()
> comment, because there it is strictly needed. It depends on the context in
> all other cases.
Good catch, I think this changed in this last version when I moved some
of the work outside the lock.
> Could you also add a comment above klp_shadow_lock definition about what
> it aims to protect?
>
How about "klp_shadow_lock provides exclusive access to the
klp_shadow_hash and the shadow variables it references." or were
thinking of something more detailed?
>> + /* Look for <obj, id> again under the lock */
>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&klp_shadow_lock, flags);
>> + shadow_data = klp_shadow_get(obj, id);
>> + if (unlikely(shadow_data)) {
>
> shadow_data is not needed anywhere, so you could do the same as for the
> first speculative search and remove shadow_data variable all together.
Ok.
>> [ ... snip ... ]
>
> Otherwise it looks good. You can add my
>
> Acked-by: Miroslav Benes <mbe...@suse.cz>
>
> with those nits fixed.
Thank you for all the suggestions and reviews!
-- Joe
