linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 03/78] xarray: Add the xa_lock to the radix_tree

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:   Tue, 2 Jan 2018 10:01:55 -0800
From:   "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>,
        Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Rehas Sachdeva <aquannie@...il.com>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        linux-nilfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-raid@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 03/78] xarray: Add the xa_lock to the radix_tree_root

On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 07:58:15PM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 07:43:40PM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> >     Also add the xa_lock() and xa_unlock() family of wrappers to make it
> >     easier to use the lock.  If we could rely on -fplan9-extensions in
> >     the compiler, we could avoid all of this syntactic sugar, but that
> >     wasn't added until gcc 4.6.
> 
> Oh, in case anyone's wondering, here's how I'd do it with plan9 extensions:
> 
> struct xarray {
>         spinlock_t;
>         int xa_flags;
>         void *xa_head;
> };
> 
> ...
>         spin_lock_irqsave(&mapping->pages, flags);
>         __delete_from_page_cache(page, NULL);
>         spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mapping->pages, flags);
> ...
> 
> The plan9 extensions permit passing a pointer to a struct which has an
> unnamed element to a function which is expecting a pointer to the type
> of that element.  The compiler does any necessary arithmetic to produce 
> a pointer.  It's exactly as if I had written:
> 
>         spin_lock_irqsave(&mapping->pages.xa_lock, flags);
>         __delete_from_page_cache(page, NULL);
>         spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mapping->pages.xa_lock, flags);
> 
> More details here: https://9p.io/sys/doc/compiler.html

I read the link, and I understand (from section 3.3) that replacing
foo.bar.baz.goo with foo.goo is less typing, but otoh the first time I
read your example above I thought "we're passing (an array of pages |
something that doesn't have the word 'lock' in the name) to
spin_lock_irqsave? wtf?"

I suppose it does force me to go dig into whatever mapping->pages is to
figure out that there's an unnamed spinlock_t and that the compiler can
insert the appropriate pointer arithmetic, but now my brain trips over
'pages' being at the end of the selector for parameter 1 which slows
down my review reading...

OTOH I guess it /did/ motivate me to click the link, so well played,
sir. :)

--D

> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html