On 06/30, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
>
> > The usage of uprobe_buffer_enable() added by dcad1a20 is very wrong,
> >
> > 1. uprobe_buffer_enable() and uprobe_buffer_disable() are not balanced,
> > _enable() should be called only if !enabled.
> >
> > 2. If uprobe_buffer_enable() fails probe_event_enable() should clear
> > tp.flags and free event_file_link.
> >
> > 3. If uprobe_register() fails it should do uprobe_buffer_disable().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com>
>
> Acked-by: Srikar Dronamraju <sri...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Thanks!
> (one nit .. )
>
> > + ret = uprobe_buffer_enable();
> > + if (ret)
> > + goto err_flags;
> > +
> > tu->consumer.filter = filter;
> > ret = uprobe_register(tu->inode, tu->offset, &tu->consumer);
> > - if (ret) {
> > - if (file) {
> > - list_del(&link->list);
> > - kfree(link);
> > - tu->tp.flags &= ~TP_FLAG_TRACE;
> > - } else
> > - tu->tp.flags &= ~TP_FLAG_PROFILE;
> > - }
> > + if (ret)
> > + goto err_buffer;
> >
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + err_buffer:
> > + uprobe_buffer_disable();
> > +
>
> How about avoiding err_buffer label?
> + if (!ret)
> + return 0;
>
> + uprobe_buffer_disable();
> +
Well, I do not really mind. But to me it looks more consistent this way,
if-something-fail-goto-err_label.
IOW, I think that the code should either not use err-labels, or always
use them like above.
Besides, perhaps we will add "if (file) uprobe_apply()" after _register()
to mix perf/ftrace, then we will need to change this "if (!ret)" code again.
Oleg.
--
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/
