linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH] seq_buf: Introduce DECLARE_SEQ_BUF and seq_buf

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]

Message-ID: <20231026133850.138d5415@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2023 13:38:50 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>, Christoph Hellwig
 <hch@....de>, Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>, Kent Overstreet
 <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, Andy
 Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>, Rasmus Villemoes
 <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>, Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
 Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman
 <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Jonathan
 Corbet <corbet@....net>, Yun Zhou <yun.zhou@...driver.com>, Jacob Keller
 <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>, Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>,
 linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] seq_buf: Introduce DECLARE_SEQ_BUF and seq_buf_cstr()

On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 10:07:28 -0700
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:

> Solve two ergonomic issues with struct seq_buf:

"ergonomic"? Does it cause carpal tunnel? ;-)

> 
> 1) Too much boilerplate is required to initialize:
> 
> 	struct seq_buf s;
> 	char buf[32];
> 
> 	seq_buf_init(s, buf, sizeof(buf));
> 
> Instead, we can build this directly on the stack. Provide
> DECLARE_SEQ_BUF() macro to do this:
> 
> 	DECLARE_SEQ_BUF(s, 32);
> 
> 2) %NUL termination is fragile and requires 2 steps to get a valid
>    C String (and is a layering violation exposing the "internals" of
>    seq_buf):
> 
> 	seq_buf_terminate(s);
> 	do_something(s->buffer);
> 
> Instead, we can just return s->buffer direction after terminating it
> in refactored seq_buf_terminate(), now known as seq_buf_cstr():
> 
> 	do_soemthing(seq_buf_cstr(s));

Do we really need to call it _cstr? Why not just have seq_buf_str() ?

I mean, this is C, do we need to state that in the name too?

BTW, I'm perfectly fine with this change, just the naming I have issues
with.

-- Steve