linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: Add kerneldoc for pcommit

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20150317081100.GA28383@gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 17 Mar 2015 09:11:00 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <h.peter.anvin@...el.com>
Cc:	Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Add kerneldoc for pcommit_sfence()


* H. Peter Anvin <h.peter.anvin@...el.com> wrote:

> On 03/16/2015 01:35 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > :-/
> > 
> > Not sure what hpa's problem with 'void *' was: especially in MM code 
> > we are using 'void *' rather widely.
> > 
> > All compilers that aim for being able to build the Linux kernel 
> > implement 'void *' as well, so that 'standard C' argument is 
> > pretty weak IMHO - unlike some of the more esoteric GCC 
> > extensions, this one is actually pretty well done and widely used 
> > in and outside of the kernel.
> > 
> >> It seems like both have arguments for them.  Char pointer 
> >> arithmetic has the advantage that its behavior is standard in C, 
> >> so it's not specific to gcc.  I agree that void* has the 
> >> advantage that it fits more naturally with the types of the 
> >> parameters passed in, requiring no casting.
> > 
> > It's also a bonus property of 'void *' that unlike 'char *' it 
> > cannot be dereferenced. So we use it for opaque buffers wherever 
> > we can.
> 
> The issue isn't void *, it is doing arithmetic on void *.

Mind explaining it to me a bit more verbosely, because I don't think I 
get your point? In my experience arithmetics on void * works just fine 
in the cases I tried.

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/