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
| ||
|
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists