linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] user_hooks: New user hooks subsystem

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]

Date:	Tue, 31 Jul 2012 16:57:42 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alessio Igor Bogani <abogani@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
	Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Geoff Levand <geoff@...radead.org>,
	Gilad Ben Yossef <gilad@...yossef.com>,
	Hakan Akkan <hakanakkan@...il.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Kevin Hilman <khilman@...com>,
	Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...lcomm.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Sven-Thorsten Dietrich <thebigcorporation@...il.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] user_hooks: New user hooks subsystem


* Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 09:06:40AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 05:08:12PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2012-07-27 at 17:40 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > > > +++ b/kernel/user_hooks.c
> > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
> > > > > +#include <linux/user_hooks.h>
> > > > > +#include <linux/rcupdate.h>
> > > > > +#include <linux/sched.h>
> > > > > +#include <linux/percpu.h>
> > > > > +
> > > > > +struct user_hooks {
> > > > > +       bool hooking;
> > > > > +       bool in_user;
> > > > > +};
> > > > 
> > > > I really detest using bool in structures.. but that's just me. Also this
> > > > really wants a comment as to wtf 'hooking' means. in_user I can just
> > > > about guess.
> > > 
> > > I really don't mind changing that to int. I just like them as 
> > > bool because they better describe the purpose of the field.
> > > 
> > > hooking means that the hooks are set (the TIF flag is set on 
> > > the current task and we also handle the exception hooks).
> > > 
> > > I can call that is_hooking instead? And/or add a comment to 
> > > explain the purpose of this.
> > 
> > Please don't use this horrible naming - use something more 
> > technical like struct user_callback and callback::active, ok?
> 
> Ok, user callback should be fine. I'll respin with that.

One problem I have with the word 'hook' is that it's rarely 
clear whether it's used as a noun or a verb - and the naming in 
your patch shows that kind of confusion in action.

'callback', while a longer word, is almost always used as a noun 
within the kernel - and it also has a pretty narrow meaning.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/