linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH][next] container_of: add container

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: <2024092149-stove-babied-e7cc@gregkh>
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2024 07:52:42 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
Cc: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] container_of: add container_first() macro

On Sat, Sep 21, 2024 at 08:45:28AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 02:50:02PM +0200, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> > This is like container_of() but it has an assert to ensure that it's
> > using the first struct member.
> > 
> 
> I just remembered that Greg wanted this based on container_of_const().

Yes, that would be best.

> Really container_of_const() should be renamed to container_of() and
> container_of() should be renamed to container_of_helper() and we
> would add a #define container_of_const container_of for the transition.

I agree, but I wonder if it's safe to just do that already and how many
build warnings would happen.  Last I checked it was a lot.

thanks,

greg k-h