linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/3] getcpu_cache system call: cache CPU number of running thread

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: <20160127221142.GA8935@cloud>
Date:	Wed, 27 Jan 2016 14:11:42 -0800
From:	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
	Andrew Hunter <ahh@...gle.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-api <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Dave Watson <davejwatson@...com>, Chris Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Ben Maurer <bmaurer@...com>,
	rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/3] getcpu_cache system call: cache CPU number of
 running thread

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 09:34:35PM +0000, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> ----- On Jan 27, 2016, at 12:37 PM, Thomas Gleixner tglx@...utronix.de wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 27 Jan 2016, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > 
> >> On Wed, 27 Jan 2016, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> >> > ----- On Jan 27, 2016, at 12:22 PM, Thomas Gleixner tglx@...utronix.de wrote:
> >> > Sounds fair. What is the recommended typing for "ptr" then ?
> >> > uint32_t ** or uint32_t * ?
> >> > 
> >> > It would be expected to pass a "uint32_t *" for the set
> >> > operation, but the "get" operation requires a "uint32_t **".
> >> 
> >> Well, you can't change the types depending on the opcode, so you need to stick
> >> with **.
> > 
> > Alternatively you make it:
> > 
> >  (opcode, *newptr, **oldptr, flags);
> 
> I'm tempted to stick to (opcode, **ptr, flags), because
> other syscalls that have "*newptr", "**oldptr"
> typically have them because they save the current state
> into oldptr, and set the new state, which is really
> not the case here. To eliminate any risk of confusion,
> I am tempted to keep a single "**ptr".
> 
> Unless someone has a better idea...

Either that or you could define it as "void *" and interpret it based on
flags, but that seems unfortunate; let's not imitate ioctl-style
typeless parameters.  I'd stick with the double pointer and the current
behavior.