linux-kernel - Re: Adjusting further size determinations?

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: <1508327383.6806.7.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Wed, 18 Oct 2017 04:49:43 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Cc:     Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
        Alexander.Steffen@...ineon.com,
        James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Corentin Labbe <clabbe.montjoie@...il.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>,
        Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@...hat.com>,
        Kenneth Goldman <kgold@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Nayna Jain <nayna@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Peter Hüwe <PeterHuewe@....de>,
        Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Adjusting further size determinations?

On Wed, 2017-10-18 at 13:00 +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > Ugly grep follows:
> > 
> > $ grep -rohP --include=*.[ch] "\w+\s*=\s*[kv].alloc\s*\(\s*sizeof.*," * | \
> >   sed -r -e 's/(\w+)\s*=\s*[kv].alloc\s*\(\s*sizeof\s*\(\s*\*\s*\1\s*\)/foo = k.alloc(sizeof(*foo))/' \
> >          -e 's/(\w+)\s*=\s*[kv].alloc\s*\(\s*sizeof\s*\(\s*struct\s+\w+\s*\)/foo = k.alloc(sizeof(struct foo))/' | \
> >   sort | uniq -c | sort -rn | head -2
> >    6123 foo = k.alloc(sizeof(*foo)),
> >    3060 foo = k.alloc(sizeof(struct foo)),
> 
> Would you like to get this ratio changed in any ways?

No.

> Available development tools could help to improve the software situation
> in a desired direction, couldn't they?
> > > Unpleasant consequences are possible in both cases.
> How much do you care to reduce the failure probability further?

Zero.

The alloc style is trivially useful for new code.
Existing code doesn't need change.