linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] Move kfree_call_rcu() to slab

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Mon, 26 Mar 2018 18:56:51 -0700
From:   Rao Shoaib <rao.shoaib@...cle.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        brouer@...hat.com, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Move kfree_call_rcu() to slab_common.c

Folks,

Is anyone working on resolving the check patch issue as I am waiting to 
resubmit my patch. Will it be fine if I submitted the patch with the 
original macro as the check is in-correct.

I do not speak perl but I can do the process work. If folks think Joe's 
fix is fine I can submit it and perhaps someone can review it ?

Regards,

Shoaib


On 01/04/2018 10:46 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-01-04 at 16:07 -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 03:47:32PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>> I was under the impression that typeof did not actually evaluate its
>>> argument, but rather only returned its type.  And there are a few macros
>>> with this pattern in mainline.
>>>
>>> Or am I confused about what typeof does?
>> I think checkpatch is confused by the '*' in the typeof argument:
>>
>> $ git diff |./scripts/checkpatch.pl --strict
>> CHECK: Macro argument reuse 'ptr' - possible side-effects?
>> #29: FILE: include/linux/rcupdate.h:896:
>> +#define kfree_rcu(ptr, rcu_head)                                        \
>> +	__kfree_rcu(&((ptr)->rcu_head), offsetof(typeof(*(ptr)), rcu_head))
>>
>> If one removes the '*', the warning goes away.
>>
>> I'm no perlista, but Joe, would this regexp modification make sense?
>>
>> +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
>> @@ -4957,7 +4957,7 @@ sub process {
>>                                  next if ($arg =~ /\.\.\./);
>>                                  next if ($arg =~ /^type$/i);
>>                                  my $tmp_stmt = $define_stmt;
>> -                               $tmp_stmt =~ s/\b(typeof|__typeof__|__builtin\w+|typecheck\s*\(\s*$Type\s*,|\#+)\s*\(*\s*$arg\s*\)*\b//g;
>> +                               $tmp_stmt =~ s/\b(typeof|__typeof__|__builtin\w+|typecheck\s*\(\s*$Type\s*,|\#+)\s*\(*\**\(*\s*$arg\s*\)*\b//g;
> I supposed ideally it'd be more like
>
> $tmp_stmt =~ s/\b(?:typeof|__typeof__|__builtin\w+|typecheck\s*\(\s*$Type\s*,|\#+)\s*\(*(?:\s*\*\s*)*\s*\(*\s*$arg\s*\)*\b//g;
>
> Adding ?: at the start to not capture and
> (?:\s*\*\s*)* for any number of * with any
> surrounding spacings.