linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH tip v4 2/5] [s]wait: Add compile time type check assertion

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: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1511272108570.3572@nanos>
Date:	Fri, 27 Nov 2015 21:10:00 +0100 (CET)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@...-carit.de>
cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
	"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip v4 2/5] [s]wait: Add compile time type check
 assertion

On Thu, 26 Nov 2015, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> On 11/24/2015 02:03 PM, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> > The API provided by wait.h and swait.h is very similiar. Most of the
> > time your are only one character away from either of it:
> > 
> >      wake_up() vs swake_up()
> > 
> > This is on purpose so that we do not have two nearly identical bits of
> > infrastructre code with dissimilar names.
> > 
> > A compile time type check assertion ensures that obvious wrong usage
> > is caught at early stage.
> 
> Obviously, this didn't really work as one can see with patch #4. That
> one just compiled. So I wrapped almost all functions to get a better
> check coverage. woken_wake_function(), autoremove_wake_function() and
> wake_bit_function() can't be wrapped easily because DEFINE_WAIT and 
> friends. I just left them out. 
> 
> The result looks pretty bad in my opinion. Probably it would be
> better do add -Werror=incompatible-pointer-types to the CFLAGS.

That's really bad.

If we can pull off the -Werror=incompatible-pointer-types trick, that
would solve it nicely.
 
Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/