linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v2 6/8] jump_label: Add a new static

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: <20150804080645.0f29617d@gandalf.local.home>
Date:	Tue, 4 Aug 2015 08:06:45 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	mingo@...nel.org, jasonbaron0@...il.com, luto@...capital.net,
	tglx@...utronix.de, will.deacon@....com, liuj97@...il.com,
	rabin@....in, ralf@...ux-mips.org, ddaney@...iumnetworks.com,
	benh@...nel.crashing.org, michael@...erman.id.au,
	heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2 6/8] jump_label: Add a new static_key interface

On Tue, 4 Aug 2015 05:37:33 +0200
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 05:57:57PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > That's implementation details, not a general concept that users will
> > need to know about.
> 
> Why?
> 
> It is a branch, regardless of which insn is used on which arch - it is
> either active and you *branch* to that code or *inactive* and you don't.
> So now it is actually what it should've been from the beginning...

I just don't like the inconsistency of the initialization and the
setting.

Either have:

 DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_TRUE()
 DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE()

and

 static_branch_set_true()
 static_branch_set_false()


or have:

 DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_ENABLED()
 DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_DISABLED()

and

 static_branch_enable()
 static_branch_disable()


But having the DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_TRUE() and static_branch_enable() is
confusing, as enable does not mean "make true"!

This may seem as bike shedding, but terminology *is* important, and
being inconsistent just makes it more probable to have bugs.

-- Steve

> 
> I realize simplifying the terminology around those jump labels/static
> branches things comes kinda unnatural now.
> 

--
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/