linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] platform/x86: dell-laptop: Allocate buffer on heap rather than globally

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: <CAHp75VcqYgDCTPqjn9F1SpAbamgPk8B7s4zYAb8csD8oFpLihw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 31 Jan 2018 18:53:19 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Mario Limonciello <Mario.Limonciello@...l.com>
Cc:     Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@...il.com>,
        Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] platform/x86: dell-laptop: Allocate buffer on heap rather
 than globally

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 6:46 PM,  <Mario.Limonciello@...l.com> wrote:

>> > for allocation: ..._alloc_request()
>> > for filling: _fill_request() / _prepare_request()
>> >
>> > or alike.
>> >
>> > _set_arguments() not good enough to me.
>>
>> Ok. Then we need to stick with 5 arguments... What about name
>> dell_fill_request()? E.g.
>>
>>   struct calling_interface_buffer buffer;
>>   dell_fill_request(&buffer, 0x2, 0, 0, 0);
>>   ret = dell_send_request(&buffer, CLASS_INFO, SELECT_RFKILL);
>>
>
> The other alternative is to just define the input of the structure immediately with
> an initializer, no multi argument filler function.  Like this:

Either would work for me, though one comment below.

> -       struct calling_interface_buffer buffer;


> +       struct calling_interface_buffer buffer = {CLASS_INFO,
> +                                                 SELECT_RFKILL,
> +                                                 {0, 0, 0, 0},
> +                                                 {0, 0, 0, 0}};

Looking to this approach I would rather provide a macro then.

#define FILL_REQUEST(a,b,c,d,...) \ // variant FILL_RFKILL_REQUEST(a,b,c,d)
(struct calling_interface_buffer) { \
 ... \
}

But then it is macro(s) vs. function(s) debate.

> -       dell_set_arguments(&buffer, 0, 0, 0, 0);
> -       ret = dell_send_request(&buffer, CLASS_INFO, SELECT_RFKILL);
> +       ret = dell_send_request(&buffer);

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko