[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID:
<AS8PR02MB7237ACFC7FF6858CF3C513238B192@AS8PR02MB7237.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 1 May 2024 19:23:23 +0200
From: Erick Archer <erick.archer@...look.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Erick Archer <erick.archer@...look.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
"Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf/ring_buffer: Prefer struct_size over open coded
arithmetic
On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 11:15:04AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 07:40:58PM +0200, Erick Archer wrote:
> > This is an effort to get rid of all multiplications from allocation
> > functions in order to prevent integer overflows [1][2].
>
> So personally I detest struct_size() because I can never remember wtf it
> does, whereas the code it replaces is simple and straight forward :/
Ok, I accept what you say. Anyway, I think it's a matter of preference ;)
If I prepare a patch with the changes suggested by Kees to gain coverage
of the __counted_by attribute, will it have a chance of being accepted?
Are there any guidelines related to this attribute, such as in the case
of the struct_size() helper?
Regards,
Erick
Powered by blists - more mailing lists