linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/9] timers: provide a "modern" variant of timers

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:   Thu, 18 May 2017 10:57:31 +0200
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Mark Gross <mark.gross@...el.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] timers: provide a "modern" variant of timers

On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 10:41 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> wrote:
> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 10:24:48AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> > b) give the union a name (breaks any reference to timer_list->func in C code):
>> >
>> >  +       union {
>> >  +               void            (*func)(struct timer_list *timer);
>> >  +               void            (*function)(unsigned long);
>> >  +       } u;
>>
>> I'll look into that, as it seems a lot safer, and places outside
>> the timer code shouldn't really touch it (although I bet they do,
>> so more fixes for this series..)
>
> Meh.  All the old init_timer users set function directly, so
> I guess we need to use the other approach.

How expensive would it be to add another field to timer_list and
just have both pointers?

      Arnd