linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] irq

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:	Fri, 25 Jun 2010 11:44:46 +0200
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:	Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] irq_work

2010/6/25 Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>:
> On Fri, 2010-06-25 at 17:23 +0800, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>> 2010/6/25 Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>:
>> > On Fri, 2010-06-25 at 15:48 +0800, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 2010-06-25 at 10:12 +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > It is better to add "void *data" field in this struct to allow same
>> >> > function can be used for multiple struct irq_work.
>> >>
>> >> No, simply do:
>> >>
>> >> struct my_foo {
>> >>   struct irq_work work;
>> >>   /* my extra data */
>> >> }
>> >>
>> >> void my_func(struct irq_work *work)
>> >> {
>> >>   struct my_foo *foo = container_of(work, struct my_foo, work);
>> >>
>> >>   /* tada! */
>> >> }
>> >
>> > Yes. This works too. But Adding "void *data" field is helpful if you do
>> > not embed struct irq_work into another struct.
>>
>>
>> That's what makes most sense. If you use work->data to put foo, then
>> you can also do the opposite. Now the best is to pick the choice that
>> gives you a real type and a typechecking, and not an error-prone and
>> obfuscated void *
>>
>> This is the way things are made in the kernel. struct work_struct, struct list,
>> struct rcu_head, etc... are all embedded into a container, so that we can
>> use container_of.
>
> container_of has no full type checking too.


You're right. There is nothing that guarantees B is contained into A,
I mean the code is supposed
to provide this guarantee, but not the type.

That said it's much proper than playing with a void *data, beside the
fact kernel developers
will quickly understand what you do if you play with such scheme as
they are used to it.
--
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/