linux-kernel - Re: mmotm 2009-02-02-17-12 uploaded (x86/nopmd etc.)

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: <20090204132529.4b77dd4a.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Wed, 4 Feb 2009 13:25:29 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	jeremy@...p.org, jaswinderrajput@...il.com,
	randy.dunlap@...cle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	x86@...nel.org, righi.andrea@...il.com
Subject: Re: mmotm 2009-02-02-17-12 uploaded (x86/nopmd etc.)

On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 21:08:46 +0100
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:

> 
> * Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
> > > > This is getting painful.
> > > 
> > > the include file spaghetti is ... interesting there, and it's historic.
> > > 
> > > I could blame it on highmem, PAE or paravirt - but i'll only blame it on 
> > > paravirt for now because those developers are still around! ;-)
> > > 
> > > Jeremy, any ideas how to reduce the historic dependency mess in that area?
> > > I think we should go on three routes at once:
> > > 
> > >  - agressive splitup and separation of type definitions from method
> > >    declaration (+ inline definitions). The spinlock_types.h / spinlock.h 
> > >    splitup was really nice in solving such dependency problems.
> > 
> > I like this one.  The mixing up of declare-something with use-something
> > is often the source of our woes.
> 
> yes. I mapped this problem area once and this is how the include file 
> spaghetti gets generated in practice:
> 
>   - type A gets declared
>   - type A gets _used_ in the same file in an inline method, BUT,
> 
>       that usage also brings in instantiated use of type X1, X2 and X3.
> 
> if all types are declared like that everywhere, it can be seen (and it's a 
> mathematical certainty) that the only conflict-free way of doing this is to:
> 
>   - initially add random #include lines to bring in type X1, X2 and X3. 
>     Which brings in recursive dependencies from those X1 X2 and X3 files.
> 
>   - when the stuff hits the fan then folks are in a big mess already and 
>     only a deep restructuring could gets them out of it - which they rarely 
>     do in an iterative environment. So they work it around iteratively: 
>     instead of new nice inline methods [which we really prefer] they delay 
>     all the 'usage' instantiation to .c file via the use of CPP macros 
>     [which we hate because they hide bugs and cause bugs].

None of which would happen if we didn't also have an inlining fetish.

--
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/