STAT code, fixes & review comments by Serge. #32
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
hallyn
reviewed
Nov 2, 2023
|
On Nov 1, 2023, at 7:59 PM, Serge Hallyn ***@***.***> wrote:
@hallyn commented on this pull request.
In tests/STAT/stat_test.c:
> + all_cpu->idle,
+ all_cpu->iowait,
+ all_cpu->irq,
+ all_cpu->softirq,
+ all_cpu->steal,
+ all_cpu->guest,
+ all_cpu->guest_nice);
+ all_cpu++;
+ }
+ fprintf(fp, "intr %s\n", st->intr);
+ fprintf(fp, "ctxt %Lu\n",st->ctxt);
+ fprintf(fp, "btime %Lu\n", st->btime);
+ fprintf(fp, "processes %Lu\n", st->processes);
+ fprintf(fp, "procs_running %Lu\n", st->procs_running);
+ fprintf(fp, "procs_blocked %Lu\n", st->procs_blocked);
+ fprintf(fp, "softirq %s\n", st->softirq);
I don't see anything in the path of calling res_read() that ensures that st->softirq won't be either NULL or garbage memory. populate_statinfo() should make sure that if no softirq section is found, it intializes the softirq to something safe.
Yes, thank you, done and pushed above change into rev3.
… —
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
|
Hi Serge,
Any update on this? I submitted the changes you asked for below.
Anjali
… On Nov 1, 2023, at 7:59 PM, Serge Hallyn ***@***.***> wrote:
@hallyn commented on this pull request.
In tests/STAT/stat_test.c:
> + all_cpu->idle,
+ all_cpu->iowait,
+ all_cpu->irq,
+ all_cpu->softirq,
+ all_cpu->steal,
+ all_cpu->guest,
+ all_cpu->guest_nice);
+ all_cpu++;
+ }
+ fprintf(fp, "intr %s\n", st->intr);
+ fprintf(fp, "ctxt %Lu\n",st->ctxt);
+ fprintf(fp, "btime %Lu\n", st->btime);
+ fprintf(fp, "processes %Lu\n", st->processes);
+ fprintf(fp, "procs_running %Lu\n", st->procs_running);
+ fprintf(fp, "procs_blocked %Lu\n", st->procs_blocked);
+ fprintf(fp, "softirq %s\n", st->softirq);
I don't see anything in the path of calling res_read() that ensures that st->softirq won't be either NULL or garbage memory. populate_statinfo() should make sure that if no softirq section is found, it intializes the softirq to something safe.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
hallyn
reviewed
Dec 5, 2023
| if (err != 0) | ||
| printf("err is %d\n",err); | ||
| st = &stats; | ||
| fp = fopen ("./stat_info.txt", "w"); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You're not checking fopen() return value. I know it's just a test, but it just looks bad :(
hallyn
reviewed
Dec 5, 2023
| char *cstr1 = cstr + 5; | ||
| while (*cstr1 != '\n') { | ||
| cstr1++; | ||
| bytes++; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should probably check bytes against max size st->intr can support.
hallyn
reviewed
Dec 5, 2023
| char *cstr1 = cstr + 8; | ||
| while (*cstr1 != '\n') { | ||
| cstr1++; | ||
| bytes++; |
Signed-off-by: Anjali Kulkarni <[email protected]>
|
On Dec 5, 2023, at 11:48 AM, Serge Hallyn ***@***.***> wrote:
@hallyn commented on this pull request.
In stat.c:
> + if (cstr)
+ sscanf(cstr, "processes %Lu", &st->processes);
+ cstr = strstr(buffer, "procs_running ");
+ if (cstr)
+ sscanf(cstr, "procs_running %Lu", &st->procs_running);
+ cstr = strstr(buffer, "procs_blocked ");
+ if (cstr)
+ sscanf(cstr, "procs_blocked %Lu", &st->procs_blocked);
+ cstr = strstr(buffer, "softirq ");
+ memset(&st->softirq, '\0', sizeof(st->softirq));
+ if (cstr) {
+ unsigned int bytes = 0;
+ char *cstr1 = cstr + 8;
+ while (*cstr1 != '\n') {
+ cstr1++;
+ bytes++;
again, check bytes length.
Thanks, taken care of all 3 comments and did push to rev3.
Anjali
… —
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
|
Hi Serge, any update on this? |
hallyn
approved these changes
Jan 17, 2024
|
It looks fine to me - but tests are failling? |
|
Yes, could you merge this review? Part of the fix is in this commit (for stat) and cpu I will submit as soon as you merge this one.
Anjali
… On Jan 17, 2024, at 3:16 PM, Serge Hallyn ***@***.***> wrote:
It looks fine to me - but tests are failling?
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
|
Sure - but I approved it, does that not give you the ability to merge it? |
|
Ok, I did not know you expected me to merge it. Will do so next time.
Anjali
… On Jan 17, 2024, at 3:51 PM, Serge Hallyn ***@***.***> wrote:
Sure - but I approved it, does that not give you the ability to merge it?
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
|
Didnt expect, but it as intended to be an option :) |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
No description provided.