* Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu...@hitachi.com> [2012-10-16 13:19:57]:
> (2012/10/16 10:37), Hyeoncheol Lee wrote:
> > convert_name_to_addr() allocated sizeof(char *) * MAX_PROBE_ARGS
> > bytes for a function name
>
> Yeah, that one was from my laziness...
>
Guess not your fault, but mine.
> >
> > Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu...@hitachi.com>
> > Cc: Srikar Dronamraju <sri...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Hyeoncheol Lee <hyc....@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > tools/perf/util/probe-event.c | 5 +++--
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/probe-event.c b/tools/perf/util/probe-event.c
> > index 49a256e..bb40ed4 100644
> > --- a/tools/perf/util/probe-event.c
> > +++ b/tools/perf/util/probe-event.c
> > @@ -2352,13 +2352,14 @@ static int convert_name_to_addr(struct
> > perf_probe_event *pev, const char *exec)
> > free(exec_copy);
> > }
> > free(pp->function);
> > - pp->function = zalloc(sizeof(char *) * MAX_PROBE_ARGS);
> > + pp->function = zalloc(sizeof(char) *
> > + (3 + sizeof(unsigned long long) * 2));
>
> Could you comment that this is enough long here?
Also can we move the arith into a macro?
>
> > if (!pp->function) {
> > ret = -ENOMEM;
> > pr_warning("Failed to allocate memory by zalloc.\n");
> > goto out;
> > }
> > - e_snprintf(pp->function, MAX_PROBE_ARGS, "0x%llx", vaddr);
> > + sprintf(pp->function, "0x%llx", vaddr);
>
> And at least we should use snprintf instead of sprintf...
> (I think ret = e_snprintf(...) is better)
>
Agree.
> > ret = 0;
> >
> > out:
> >
>
--
Thanks and Regards
Srikar
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
