linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] rcu: Don't return a value from rcu_assign

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:   Mon, 27 May 2019 10:49:01 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>, rcu@...r.kernel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, apw@...onical.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] rcu: Don't return a value from rcu_assign_pointer()

On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 10:21:22AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-05-27 at 09:10 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 10:49:57AM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > > Quoting Paul [1]:
> > > 
> > >   "Given that a quick (and perhaps error-prone) search of the uses
> > >    of rcu_assign_pointer() in v5.1 didn't find a single use of the
> > >    return value, let's please instead change the documentation and
> > >    implementation to eliminate the return value."
> > > 
> > > [1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190523135013.GL28207@linux.ibm.com
> > 
> > Queued, thank you!
> > 
> > Adding the checkpatch maintainers on CC as well.  The "do { } while
> > (0)" prevents the return value from being used, by design.  Given the
> > checkpatch complaint, is there some better way to achieve this?
> 
> Not sure what the checkpatch complaint is here.

Checkpatch seems to want at least two statements in each
"do { } while (0)" macro definition:

WARNING: Single statement macros should not use a do {} while (0) loop

> Reading the link above, there seems to be a compiler warning.

The compiler warning is a theoretical issue that is being fixed by this
patch, and the patch is giving the checkpatch warning.

> Perhaps a statement expression macro with no return value?
> 
> #define rcu_assign_pointer(p, v)	({ (p) = (v); ; })

This is at best an acquired taste for me...

							Thanx, Paul