linux-kernel - RE: [char-misc-next 3/3] mei: me: use an index instead of a pointer for private data

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 13 Jun 2017 14:33:08 +0000
From:   "Winkler, Tomas" <tomas.winkler@...el.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC:     "Usyskin, Alexander" <alexander.usyskin@...el.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [char-misc-next 3/3] mei: me: use an index instead of a pointer
 for private data



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Kroah-Hartman [mailto:gregkh@...uxfoundation.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 16:46
> To: Winkler, Tomas <tomas.winkler@...el.com>
> Cc: Usyskin, Alexander <alexander.usyskin@...el.com>; linux-
> kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [char-misc-next 3/3] mei: me: use an index instead of a pointer
> for private data
> 
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 12:15:57PM +0300, Tomas Winkler wrote:
> > +static const struct mei_cfg *const mei_cfg_list[] = {
> > +	NULL,
> > +	&mei_me_legacy_cfg,
> > +	&mei_me_ich_cfg,
> > +	&mei_me_pch_cfg,
> > +	&mei_me_pch_cpt_pbg_cfg,
> > +	&mei_me_pch8_cfg,
> > +	&mei_me_pch8_sps_cfg,
> > +};
> 
> Does this structure have to keep in sync with:
> 
> > +enum mei_cfg_idx {
> > +	MEI_ME_UNDEF_CFG,
> > +	MEI_ME_LEGACY_CFG,
> > +	MEI_ME_ICH_CFG,
> > +	MEI_ME_PCH_CFG,
> > +	MEI_ME_PCH_CPT_PBG_CFG,
> > +	MEI_ME_PCH8_CFG,
> > +	MEI_ME_PCH8_SPS_CFG,
> > +	MEI_ME_NUM_CFG,
> > +};
> 
> That value?
> 
> If so, why not make it automatic and have the array use the enum values?
> That way you know you get it right.

Do you mean 'designated Initializers'?  I didn't know it's supported.. neat feature. 

> At the very least, document the heck out of this...

Will do

Thanks
Tomas