linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] Move kfree_call_rcu() to slab

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: <20180104214658.GA20740@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date:   Thu, 4 Jan 2018 13:46:58 -0800
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Rao Shoaib <rao.shoaib@...cle.com>
Cc:     Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, brouer@...hat.com, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Move kfree_call_rcu() to slab_common.c

On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 01:27:49PM -0800, Rao Shoaib wrote:
> On 01/04/2018 12:35 PM, Rao Shoaib wrote:
> > As far as your previous comments are concerned, only the following one
> > has not been addressed. Can you please elaborate as I do not understand
> > the comment. The code was expanded because the new macro expansion check
> > fails. Based on Matthew Wilcox's comment I have reverted rcu_head_name
> > back to rcu_head.
> It turns out I did not remember the real reason for the change. With the
> macro rewritten, using rcu_head as a macro argument does not work because it
> conflicts with the name of the type 'struct rcu_head' used in the macro. I
> have renamed the macro argument to rcu_name.
> 
> Shoaib
> > 
> > > +#define kfree_rcu(ptr, rcu_head_name) \
> > > +    do { \
> > > +        typeof(ptr) __ptr = ptr;    \
> > > +        unsigned long __off = offsetof(typeof(*(__ptr)), \
> > > +                              rcu_head_name); \
> > > +        struct rcu_head *__rptr = (void *)__ptr + __off; \
> > > +        __kfree_rcu(__rptr, __off); \
> > > +    } while (0)
> > 
> > why do you want to open code this?

But why are you changing this macro at all?  If it was to avoid the
double-mention of "ptr", then you haven't done that.