linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 28/31] Constify struct super

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:	Sun, 06 Dec 2009 02:41:29 +0100
From:	Emese Revfy <re.emese@...il.com>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
CC:	matthew@....cx, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 28/31] Constify struct super_operations for 2.6.32 v1

Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 11:47:15PM +0100, Emese Revfy wrote:
>> From: Emese Revfy <re.emese@...il.com>
>>
>> Constify struct super_operations.
> 
> What the _hell_ is that?
> 
>> +   	struct inode *(* const alloc_inode)(struct super_block *sb);
> 
> This is ugly and has all marks of cargo-cult patches.  NAKed at least
> until you give exceptionally good reasons for doing that.

My idea was that since each instance of super_operations is const,
I figured that there is an implicit policy of not wanting writable
super_operations structures in the kernel. If this is actually the
case then my patch makes the compiler enforce this policy, otherwise
please ignore it.
--
Emese

--
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/