linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next] static-keys: Better error checking for static_key

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: <20150827222320.GA16853@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Fri, 28 Aug 2015 00:23:20 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Chuck Ebbert <cebbert.lkml@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] static-keys: Better error checking for
 static_key_enable/disable

On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 04:57:13PM -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> The  warnings for static_key_enable/disable don't catch common
> errors. For example, starting with a default enabled key and
> calling enable doesn't cause a warning until the next enable
> or disable. Check explicitly for zero or one instead of allowing
> both values in every case. Generated code should be smaller too.

I explicitly intended to allow multiple consecutive static_key_enable()
calls (same for disable).

If its already enabled, calling enable should be a no-op.
--
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/