DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 523EAC057FA8
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 08:17:44 -0500
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
Cc: Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@redhat.com>, live-patching@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jessica Yu <jeyu@redhat.com>,
        Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org>, Miroslav Benes <mbenes@suse.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] livepatch: introduce shadow variable API
Message-ID: <20170614131744.43izgxdl4qvwmgbj@treble>
References: <1496341526-19061-1-git-send-email-joe.lawrence@redhat.com>
 <1496341526-19061-2-git-send-email-joe.lawrence@redhat.com>
 <20170614125913.GC15013@pathway.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170614125913.GC15013@pathway.suse.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0.1 (2016-04-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 819
Lines: 28

On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 02:59:13PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > +}
> > +
> > +void klp_shadow_detach(void *obj, char *var)
> > +{
> > +	unsigned long flags;
> > +	struct klp_shadow *shadow;
> > +
> > +	spin_lock_irqsave(&klp_shadow_lock, flags);
> > +
> > +	hash_for_each_possible(klp_shadow_hash, shadow, node,
> > +			       (unsigned long)obj) {
> > +		if (shadow->obj == obj && !strcmp(shadow->var, var)) {
> 
> Do we need to test "shadow->obj == obj" here? If it is not true,
> there would be a bug in the hashtable implementation or in
> klp_shadow_attach().
> 
> Well, it might make sense to add a consistency check:
> 
>       WARN_ON(shadow->obj != obj);
> 

It would make sense if hash_for_each_possible() worked that way, but for
some reason it doesn't. :-/  It gives you all the hash collisions.

-- 
Josh