linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH v2 00/18] sysctl: constify sysctl ctl

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2023 06:34:45 -0800
From: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>
Cc: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>,
	Joel Granados <j.granados@...sung.com>,
	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
	Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@...gle.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/18] sysctl: constify sysctl ctl_tables

On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 08:39:20AM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, 19 Dec 2023, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 10:21:25PM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > > > As I noted, I think this is a generically neat endeavor and so I think
> > > > it would be nice to shorthand *any* member of the struct. ctl->any.
> > > > Julia, is that possible?
> > >
> > > What do you mean by *any* member?
> >
> > I meant when any code tries to assign a new variable to any of the
> > members of the struct ctl_table *foo, so any foo->*any*
> 
> Declaring any to be an identifier metavariable would be sufficient.

Fantastic thanks!

> > > If any is an identifier typed
> > > metavariable then that would get any immediate member.  But maybe you want
> > > something like
> > >
> > > <+...ctl->any...+>
> > >
> > > that will match anything that has ctl->any as a subexpression?
> >
> > If as just an expression, then no, we really want this to be tied to
> > the data struture in question we want to modify.
> 
> What about foo->a.b?  Or maybe that doesn't occur in your structure?

We'll consider that too, good idea!

  Luis