Re: [PATCH V9 01/16] rv: Add Runtime Verification (RV) interface

[Steven Rostedt]

On Sun, 31 Jul 2022 23:06:31 +0800
Tao Zhou <tao.zhou@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > All things above are misled by the first interpretation but,,,  
> 
> Yeah, this is not that clear from my above words expression. I said the return
> value of da_monitor_init_*() will be 0, but it is not right. Global and per-cpu
> monitor will return 0, per-task monitor may return a positive value when the
> slot is equal or greater than RV_PER_TASK_MONITOR_INIT(how possible this will
> happen I do know yet). This is from reading the current code implementation.
> I just want to say that there may be a bug here.

Well, rv_get_monitor_slot() can currently only return 0 or negative.
This is because PER_TASK_MONITORS is just 1 and we can not return that
or greater.

> If rv_enable_monitor() return a positive value and the error happened(as above

With the current code this can not happen, as we only allow for a
single PER_TASK_MONITORS.

But in the future, if we increment this, then you are correct. We can
not just check retval, but need to check retval < 0.

This does need to be fixed. But because it currently isn't an issue
because we they can only return 0 or negative, I'm going to pull this
series in.

But Daniel, these checks do need to be updated. Please send patches on
top of this series to address it.

-- Steve


> said), user space will not know this is a error return value, but regard it as a
> right writing. Even if the return value(the slot value not in [0..RV_PER_TASK_MONITOR_INIT))
> is equal to count of charaters that are writen to the file(the string length of monitor name),
> it will still be not a right writing.
>