linux-kernel - Re: epoll_ctl and const correctness

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: <49CAA055.5060603@goop.org>
Date:	Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:21:25 -0700
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	nicolas sitbon <nicolas.sitbon@...il.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: epoll_ctl and const correctness

nicolas sitbon wrote:
> valgrind confirms this
> behaviour, so am I wrong?

That doesn't prove very much.  Unlike usermode code, Valgrind doesn't 
instrument the kernel, so it computes the side-effects of kernel 
operations by parsing the syscall stream and simulating the effect.  
(That is to say, it strengthens your argument somewhat, but valgrind's 
handling of this syscall could be buggy.)

>  or the good prototype is
>
> int epoll_ctl(int epfd, int op, int fd, struct epoll_event const *event);
>   

Putting "const" first is conventional.

    J
--
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/