Merge tag 'trace-v7.3-2' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/trace/linux-tracegrafted

Pull tracing fixes from Steven Rostedt:

 - Fix error output of boot instance creation failure

   Currently if a boot instance creation fails, instead of printing out
   the name of the instance that failed, it prints "(null)". That is
   because it prints "cur_str" that had already been processed by
   strsep(). Print the saved name instead.

   While at it, print the error code of the failure.

 - Fix use-after-free for same named historgrams

   Histograms can be named so that they can be used in multiple events.
   But if the named histogram has a variable attached, the second event
   that uses the named histogram which duplicates it and needs to free
   the original after duplication leaves the old variable in place and
   still visible. If another histogram uses than variable, it will use
   the stale one which will try to reference the freed duplicate
   histogram and crash the kernel.

   Free the duplicate variables along with the duplicated histogram
   data.

 - Check return value of kthread_run() in event self test

   The events self tests uses a kthread for testing but does not check
   if it succeeded in creating a kthread. If the kthread creation were
   to fail, the code will still try to call kthread_stop() on the error
   returned.

 - Fix race between reading trace_pipe and updating subbuffer size

   If a user is reading the trace_pipe file at the same time they update
   the ring buffer sub-buffer size, can cause the trace_pipe read to
   read stale data. Add trace_access_lock() around updating the ring
   buffer sub-buffer size.

 - Fix eventfs_inode on failure path in creation of the events directory

   In the creation of the "events" directory, if after allocating the
   eventfs_inode a failure is detected, it calls cleanup_ei() which
   calls free_ei(). The free_ei() will test if eventfs_inode being freed
   has no children. It is a bug if it does. But on the failure case of
   the creation of the "events" directory, the children lists have not
   yet been initialized and the free will trigger a warning because
   list_empty() on an uninitialized list returns false.

   Move the initialization into init_ei() where it makes more sense and
   makes sure that a created eventfs_inode has its lists initialized
   upon creation.

 - Check return value of kthread_run() in ftrace direct sample code

   The sample code that shows how to use the ftrace direct calls does
   not test the return of kthread_run() to see if it succeeds. Return a
   failure if the kthread_run() doesn't succeed.

 - Clear user events state on fork in case of alloc failure

   On fork, the child gets a pointer to the parent's user events state.
   It makes a copy of it then updates the child's pointer to it. But if
   the allocation fails, the duplication function leaves the child with
   a pointer to its parent's descriptor. When the child cleans up its
   data, it will free the parent's descriptor while the parent is still
   using it.

   In the duplication function, set the child's user_event_mm to NULL
   before testing if the allocation succeeded, and when it exits it will
   not free the parent's descriptor.

 - Fix retry exhaustion in simple ring buffer reader swap

   simple_ring_buffer_swap_reader_page() starts with retry set to 8 and
   post-decrements it only after a failed link replacement. On the final
   attempt, a successful replacement leaves retry at zero, while a
   failed replacement leaves it at -1.

   But the check for success expects the retry value to be non-zero and
   exits with an error on zero. This is the opposite result. Fix it.

 - Fail nicely when the remote swap_reader_page() returns an error

   Currently, if the swap_reader_page() of a remote buffer fails, it
   triggers a WARN_ON_ONCE() and continues normally. Instead, have it
   exit with an error and a pr_warn() print instead of a full WARNING.

* tag 'trace-v7.3-2' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/trace/linux-trace:
  ring-buffer: Stop remote reader update when page swap fails
  tracing: Fix retry exhaustion in simple ring buffer reader swap
  tracing/user_events: Clear copied tracing state before fork duplication
  samples/ftrace: Fix kthread_stop() on ERR_PTR in ftrace-direct-multi-modify
  samples/ftrace: Fix kthread_stop() on ERR_PTR in ftrace-direct-modify
  eventfs: Initialize ei->children and ei->list in init_ei()
  tracing: Fix use-after-free in trace_pipe read on sub-buffer order change
  tracing: Fix crash passing ERR_PTR to kthread_stop()
  tracing: Fix use-after-free with same-name named triggers
  tracing: Fix logged instance name on creation failure

1 files changed, 196 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/process/7.AdvancedTopics.rst b/Documentation/process/7.AdvancedTopics.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..185651d87
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/process/7.AdvancedTopics.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,196 @@
+.. _development_advancedtopics:
+
+Advanced topics
+===============
+
+At this point, hopefully, you have a handle on how the development process
+works.  There is still more to learn, however!  This section will cover a
+number of topics which can be helpful for developers wanting to become a
+regular part of the Linux kernel development process.
+
+Managing patches with git
+-------------------------
+
+The use of distributed version control for the kernel began in early 2002,
+when Linus first started playing with the proprietary BitKeeper
+application.  While BitKeeper was controversial, the approach to software
+version management it embodied most certainly was not.  Distributed version
+control enabled an immediate acceleration of the kernel development
+project.  In current times, there are several free alternatives to
+BitKeeper.  For better or for worse, the kernel project has settled on git
+as its tool of choice.
+
+Managing patches with git can make life much easier for the developer,
+especially as the volume of those patches grows.  Git also has its rough
+edges and poses certain hazards; it is a young and powerful tool which is
+still being civilized by its developers.  This document will not attempt to
+teach the reader how to use git; that would be sufficient material for a
+long document in its own right.  Instead, the focus here will be on how git
+fits into the kernel development process in particular.  Developers who
+wish to come up to speed with git will find more information at:
+
+	https://git-scm.com/
+
+	https://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/user-manual.html
+
+and on various tutorials found on the web.
+
+The first order of business is to read the above sites and get a solid
+understanding of how git works before trying to use it to make patches
+available to others.  A git-using developer should be able to obtain a copy
+of the mainline repository, explore the revision history, commit changes to
+the tree, use branches, etc.  An understanding of git's tools for the
+rewriting of history (such as rebase) is also useful.  Git comes with its
+own terminology and concepts; a new user of git should know about refs,
+remote branches, the index, fast-forward merges, pushes and pulls, detached
+heads, etc.  It can all be a little intimidating at the outset, but the
+concepts are not that hard to grasp with a bit of study.
+
+Using git to generate patches for submission by email can be a good
+exercise while coming up to speed.
+
+When you are ready to start putting up git trees for others to look at, you
+will, of course, need a server that can be pulled from.  Setting up such a
+server with git-daemon is relatively straightforward if you have a system
+which is accessible to the Internet.  Otherwise, free, public hosting sites
+(GitHub, for example) are starting to appear on the net.  Established
+developers can get an account on kernel.org, but those are not easy to come
+by; see https://kernel.org/faq/ for more information.
+
+The normal git workflow involves the use of a lot of branches.  Each line
+of development can be separated into a separate "topic branch" and
+maintained independently.  Branches in git are cheap, there is no reason to
+not make free use of them.  And, in any case, you should not do your
+development in any branch which you intend to ask others to pull from.
+Publicly-available branches should be created with care; merge in patches
+from development branches when they are in complete form and ready to go -
+not before.
+
+Git provides some powerful tools which can allow you to rewrite your
+development history.  An inconvenient patch (one which breaks bisection,
+say, or which has some other sort of obvious bug) can be fixed in place or
+made to disappear from the history entirely.  A patch series can be
+rewritten as if it had been written on top of today's mainline, even though
+you have been working on it for months.  Changes can be transparently
+shifted from one branch to another.  And so on.  Judicious use of git's
+ability to revise history can help in the creation of clean patch sets with
+fewer problems.
+
+Excessive use of this capability can lead to other problems, though, beyond
+a simple obsession for the creation of the perfect project history.
+Rewriting history will rewrite the changes contained in that history,
+turning a tested (hopefully) kernel tree into an untested one.  But, beyond
+that, developers cannot easily collaborate if they do not have a shared
+view of the project history; if you rewrite history which other developers
+have pulled into their repositories, you will make life much more difficult
+for those developers.  So a simple rule of thumb applies here: history
+which has been exported to others should generally be seen as immutable
+thereafter.
+
+So, once you push a set of changes to your publicly-available server, those
+changes should not be rewritten.  Git will attempt to enforce this rule if
+you try to push changes which do not result in a fast-forward merge
+(i.e. changes which do not share the same history).  It is possible to
+override this check, and there may be times when it is necessary to rewrite
+an exported tree.  Moving changesets between trees to avoid conflicts in
+linux-next is one example.  But such actions should be rare.  This is one
+of the reasons why development should be done in private branches (which
+can be rewritten if necessary) and only moved into public branches when
+it's in a reasonably advanced state.
+
+As the mainline (or other tree upon which a set of changes is based)
+advances, it is tempting to merge with that tree to stay on the leading
+edge.  For a private branch, rebasing can be an easy way to keep up with
+another tree, but rebasing is not an option once a tree is exported to the
+world.  Once that happens, a full merge must be done.  Merging occasionally
+makes good sense, but overly frequent merges can clutter the history
+needlessly.  Suggested technique in this case is to merge infrequently, and
+generally only at specific release points (such as a mainline -rc
+release).  If you are nervous about specific changes, you can always
+perform test merges in a private branch.  The git "rerere" tool can be
+useful in such situations; it remembers how merge conflicts were resolved
+so that you don't have to do the same work twice.
+
+One of the biggest recurring complaints about tools like git is this: the
+mass movement of patches from one repository to another makes it easy to
+slip in ill-advised changes which go into the mainline below the review
+radar.  Kernel developers tend to get unhappy when they see that kind of
+thing happening; putting up a git tree with unreviewed or off-topic patches
+can affect your ability to get trees pulled in the future.  Quoting Linus:
+
+::
+
+	You can send me patches, but for me to pull a git patch from you, I
+	need to know that you know what you're doing, and I need to be able
+	to trust things *without* then having to go and check every
+	individual change by hand.
+
+(https://lwn.net/Articles/224135/).
+
+To avoid this kind of situation, ensure that all patches within a given
+branch stick closely to the associated topic; a "driver fixes" branch
+should not be making changes to the core memory management code.  And, most
+importantly, do not use a git tree to bypass the review process.  Post an
+occasional summary of the tree to the relevant list, and, when the time is
+right, request that the tree be included in linux-next.
+
+If and when others start to send patches for inclusion into your tree,
+don't forget to review them.  Also ensure that you maintain the correct
+authorship information; the git "am" tool does its best in this regard, but
+you may have to add a "From:" line to the patch if it has been relayed to
+you via a third party.
+
+When requesting a pull, be sure to give all the relevant information: where
+your tree is, what branch to pull, and what changes will result from the
+pull.  The git request-pull command can be helpful in this regard; it will
+format the request as other developers expect, and will also check to be
+sure that you have remembered to push those changes to the public server.
+
+.. _development_advancedtopics_reviews:
+
+Reviewing patches
+-----------------
+
+Some readers will certainly object to putting this section with "advanced
+topics" on the grounds that even beginning kernel developers should be
+reviewing patches.  It is certainly true that there is no better way to
+learn how to program in the kernel environment than by looking at code
+posted by others.  In addition, reviewers are forever in short supply; by
+looking at code you can make a significant contribution to the process as a
+whole.
+
+Reviewing code can be an intimidating prospect, especially for a new kernel
+developer who may well feel nervous about questioning code - in public -
+which has been posted by those with more experience.  Even code written by
+the most experienced developers can be improved, though.  Perhaps the best
+piece of advice for reviewers (all reviewers) is this: phrase review
+comments as questions rather than criticisms.  Asking "how does the lock
+get released in this path?" will always work better than stating "the
+locking here is wrong."
+
+Another technique that is useful in case of a disagreement is to ask for others
+to chime in. If a discussion reaches a stalemate after a few exchanges,
+then call for opinions of other reviewers or maintainers. Often those in
+agreement with a reviewer remain silent unless called upon.
+The opinion of multiple people carries exponentially more weight.
+
+Different developers will review code from different points of view.  Some
+are mostly concerned with coding style and whether code lines have trailing
+white space.  Others will focus primarily on whether the change implemented
+by the patch as a whole is a good thing for the kernel or not.  Yet others
+will check for problematic locking, excessive stack usage, possible
+security issues, duplication of code found elsewhere, adequate
+documentation, adverse effects on performance, user-space ABI changes, etc.
+All types of review, if they lead to better code going into the kernel, are
+welcome and worthwhile.
+
+There is no strict requirement to use specific tags like ``Reviewed-by``.
+In fact reviews in plain English are more informative and encouraged
+even when a tag is provided, e.g. "I looked at aspects A, B and C of this
+submission and it looks good to me."
+Some form of a review message or reply is obviously necessary otherwise
+maintainers will not know that the reviewer has looked at the patch at all!
+
+Last but not least patch review may become a negative process, focused
+on pointing out problems. Please throw in a compliment once in a while,
+particularly for newbies!