mbox series

[0/2] ftrace: two fixes with func_probes handling

Message ID cover.1562249521.git.naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com (mailing list archive)
Headers show
Series ftrace: two fixes with func_probes handling | expand

Message

Naveen N. Rao July 4, 2019, 2:34 p.m. UTC 
Two patches addressing bugs in ftrace function probe handling. The first 
patch addresses a NULL pointer dereference reported by LTP tests, while 
the second one is a trivial patch to address a missing check for return 
value, found by code inspection.

- Naveen


Naveen N. Rao (2):
  ftrace: Fix NULL pointer dereference in t_probe_next()
  ftrace: Check for successful allocation of hash

 kernel/trace/ftrace.c | 9 +++++++++
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)

Comments

Naveen N. Rao Aug. 8, 2019, 3:15 p.m. UTC | #1 
Naveen N. Rao wrote:
> Two patches addressing bugs in ftrace function probe handling. The first 
> patch addresses a NULL pointer dereference reported by LTP tests, while 
> the second one is a trivial patch to address a missing check for return 
> value, found by code inspection.

Steven,
Can you please take a look at these patches?

Thanks,
Naveen
Steven Rostedt Aug. 8, 2019, 3:17 p.m. UTC | #2 
On Thu, 08 Aug 2019 20:45:04 +0530
"Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> Naveen N. Rao wrote:
> > Two patches addressing bugs in ftrace function probe handling. The first 
> > patch addresses a NULL pointer dereference reported by LTP tests, while 
> > the second one is a trivial patch to address a missing check for return 
> > value, found by code inspection.  
> 
> Steven,
> Can you please take a look at these patches?

Thanks for the ping. Yes I will.

-- Steve
Steven Rostedt Aug. 30, 2019, 8:14 p.m. UTC | #3 
On Thu, 08 Aug 2019 20:45:04 +0530
"Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> Naveen N. Rao wrote:
> > Two patches addressing bugs in ftrace function probe handling. The first 
> > patch addresses a NULL pointer dereference reported by LTP tests, while 
> > the second one is a trivial patch to address a missing check for return 
> > value, found by code inspection.  
> 
> Steven,
> Can you please take a look at these patches?
>

Sorry for the late reply, I've been traveling a lot lately. I'm looking
at these now. I'm trying to see how they triggered a bug.

-- Steve