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]

Date:	Wed, 27 Jan 2016 22:47:37 +0000 (UTC)
From:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To:	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
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 Jan 27, 2016, at 5:11 PM, Josh Triplett josh@...htriplett.org wrote:

> 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.

Allright, will do! Thanks for the feedback :)

Mathieu


-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com