linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] ->get_link(), ->put

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:	Sun, 3 Jan 2016 11:53:21 -0800
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] ->get_link(), ->put_link() and cookies

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 10:36 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>         In cases when we need to pin the symlink body in some manner, we
> need to undo whatever we'd done once the caller is done with the body.
> That went through several variants, the latest (in -next right now) being
> "have non-NULL ->put_link() and leave an argument for it in void *cookie,
> address of which is passed to ->get_link()".

The series looks ok to me, even if I still am not a fan of the cookie.
I suspect the remaining users could easily embed the returned string
at the end of a structure, and get their data with container_of(). It
would complicate their unusual behavior for sure, but make the common
case much more understandable.

Oh well. I won't insist - it may be too painful to be worth it. And
it's a fairly separate issue anyway.

So no objections to this series.

              Linus
--
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/