linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/5] typesafe: TIMER_INITIALIZER and setup

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: <200803051355.36502.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Date:	Wed, 5 Mar 2008 13:55:36 +1100
From:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] typesafe: TIMER_INITIALIZER and setup_timer

On Tuesday 05 February 2008 14:41:53 Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 February 2008 01:57:37 Al Viro wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 11:19:44PM +1100, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > This patch lets timer callback functions have their natural type
> > > (ie. exactly match the data pointer type); it allows the old "unsigned
> > > long data" type as well.
> > >
> > > Downside: if you use the old "unsigned long" callback type, you won't
> > > get a warning if your data is not an unsigned long, due to the cast.
> >
> > No.  There's much saner way to do that and it does not involve any
> > gccisms at all.  I'd posted such patches quite a while ago; normal C
> > constructs are quite sufficient, TYVM.
>
> If you're referring to your 1 Dec 2006 posting, it was enlightening, but I
> was unable to find any patches.

No reply?  I'll try again now.

> > No.  There's much saner way to do that and it does not involve any
> > gccisms at all.

Except typeof, you mean?

> > I'd posted such patches quite a while ago

AFAICT you posted an untested code fragment which won't actually compile 
because the callback in this case returns void.

> > ; normal C constructs are quite sufficient, TYVM.

Your code didn't check the return type, except that it's a pointer or 
int-compatible.  We can do better, as this patch showed.

If you have a "saner way" of doing this in general which is just as effective, 
I look forward to it.  Otherwise you're just managed to delay these 
improvements for another release.

Rusty.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/