linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 1/4] device property: allow to constify properties

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: <20170203150907.GA3868@dtor-ws>
Date:   Fri, 3 Feb 2017 07:09:07 -0800
From:   Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/4] device property: allow to constify properties

On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 01:40:21PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-02-02 at 17:41 -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > There is no reason why statically defined properties should be
> > modifiable,
> > so let's make device_add_properties() and the rest of pset_*()
> > functions to
> > take const pointers to properties.
> > 
> > This will allow us to mark properties as const/__initconst at
> > definition
> > sites.
> > 
> 
> Looks good to me.
> 
> FWIW:
> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
> 
> Though, nitpicks below.
>  
> >  static struct property_set *pset_copy_set(const struct property_set
> > *pset)
> >  {
> > -	const struct property_entry *entry;
> > +	struct property_entry *props;
> 
> Can we leave the name?
>  
> > -	p->properties = kcalloc(n + 1, sizeof(*entry), GFP_KERNEL);
> > 
> > +	p->properties = props = kcalloc(n + 1, sizeof(*props),
> > GFP_KERNEL);
> >  	if (!p->properties) {
> >  		kfree(p);
> >  		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> >  	}
> >  
> >  	for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
> 
> > -		int ret = pset_copy_entry(&p->properties[i],
> > +		int ret = pset_copy_entry(&props[i],
> >  					  &pset->properties[i]);
> 
> Do we need these changes?

Didn't want to wrap the line, the name is restored later anyway.

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry