Re: [PATCH V4 01/20] rv: Add Runtime Verification (RV) interface

From: Tao Zhou <tao.zhou@linux.dev>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@kernel.org>,
	Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@linux-watchdog.org>,
	Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Marco Elver <elver@google.com>,
	Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
	Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Gabriele Paoloni <gpaoloni@redhat.com>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
	Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>,
	linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-trace-devel@vger.kernel.org, Tao Zhou <tao.zhou@linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 01/20] rv: Add Runtime Verification (RV) interface
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2022 06:28:46 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YstSnnCL45wne7K9@geo.homenetwork> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220710114242.745d65b3@rorschach.local.home>

On Sun, Jul 10, 2022 at 11:42:42AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:

> On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 23:11:43 +0800
> Tao Zhou <tao.zhou@linux.dev> wrote:
> 
> > The @*pos of enable_monitors_start() can not be -1 or other negative value.
> > And I checked that the *pos is 0(right?). That is safe. Sorry for not being
> > that ture and maybe this is a notice here. Because if it is a negative value,
> > the returned m_def is a point to a data place 16 bytes before &rv_monitors_list.
> > That is a not ture rv_monitors_list stucture data. But it is not possiable now.
> > Maybe "inspired" from your question. Look it more, I image this simulation.
> > If the monitor(and all is enabled) is more enough to let the *pos to increase
> > to -1. And the returned m_def is last monitor that returned from enable_monitors_start().
> > The enable_monitors_next() check from the last monitor and return NULL.
> > Only show the last monitor. This will not really happen I think.
> > But I am not focus enough to the seq file code or others now, so this may be
> > more possible to be not right. Late reply continued from me..
> 
> 
> So basically you are saying we should have:
> 
> > +static void *enabled_monitors_start(struct seq_file *m, loff_t *pos)
> > +{
> > +       struct rv_monitor_def *m_def;
> > +       loff_t l;
> > +
> > +       mutex_lock(&rv_interface_lock);
> 
> 	if (list_empty(&rv_monitors_list->list))
> 		return NULL;
> ?

From the function itself, this looks safer. Thanks.

> Probably safer to have that.
> 
> -- Steve
> 
> 
> > +       m_def = list_entry(&rv_monitors_list, struct rv_monitor_def, list);
> > +
> > +       for (l = 0; l <= *pos; ) {
> > +               m_def = enabled_monitors_next(m, m_def, &l);
> > +               if (!m_def)
> > +                       break;
> > +       }
> > +
> > +       return m_def;
> > +}