Hello Masami,
Thank you for your review!
My comments are below.
On 01/21/2013 06:49 AM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> (2013/01/10 8:09), Sasha Levin wrote:
>> @@ -278,7 +278,7 @@ static int __kprobes can_optimize(unsigned long paddr)
>> }
>>
>> /* Check optimized_kprobe can actually be optimized. */
>> -int __kprobes arch_check_optimized_kprobe(struct optimized_kprobe *op)
>> +int __kprobes arch_check_optimized_kprobe(const struct optimized_kprobe *op)
>> {
>> int i;
>> struct kprobe *p;
>
> This can be change optimized_kprobe inside, e.g. change flags.
> IMHO, I don't like to change this interface.
[snip]
>> -static __kprobes int check_kprobe_address_safe(struct kprobe *p,
>> +static __kprobes int check_kprobe_address_safe(const struct kprobe *p,
>> struct module **probed_mod)
>> {
>> int ret = 0;
>>
>
> No, p is NOT constant in this function. This changes p->flags.
>
> ---
> #ifdef KPROBES_CAN_USE_FTRACE
> /* Given address is not on the instruction boundary */
> if ((unsigned long)p->addr != ftrace_addr)
> return -EILSEQ;
> p->flags |= KPROBE_FLAG_FTRACE;
> #else /* !KPROBES_CAN_USE_FTRACE */
As to arch_check_optimized_kprobe() and check_kprobe_address_safe(), this
is simply way too confusing. It doesn't make sense that a function named
check_[...]() would modify any of it's parameters.
For example, that entire block within KPROBES_CAN_USE_FTRACE should be split
out and go into update_kprobe_for_ftrace() or something similar.
If that makes sense, I can send a patch to split out all the parts that
modify anything in those two functions out of them.
Thanks,
Sasha
--
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/
