linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] timers, pointers to functions and type safety

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:59:23 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] timers, pointers to functions and type safety


* Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk> wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 12:22:44PM +0000, David Howells wrote:
> > Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> > 
> > > the question is: which is more important, the type safety of a 
> > > container_of() [or type cast], which if we get it wrong produces a 
> > > /very/ trivial crash that is trivial to fix
> 
> The hell it is.  You get wrong fields of a big struct read and 
> modified. Silently.

yeah - i think you are right. I think we should go with your changes to 
incrase type safety for timer callbacks - and if someone wants to shrink 
size (which patches do not exist at the moment), that person can think 
about how to achieve that while still keeping type safety.

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/