linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/7] Add a new flags-accepting interface for anonymous inodes

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, 14 Oct 2019 20:30:07 +0200
From:   Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
To:     Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>
Cc:     Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@...gle.com>,
        Nick Kralevich <nnk@...gle.com>,
        Nosh Minwalla <nosh@...gle.com>,
        Tim Murray <timmurray@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] Add a new flags-accepting interface for anonymous inodes

On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 8:16 PM Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 8:39 AM Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 9:16 PM Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com> wrote:
> > > Add functions forwarding from the old names to the new ones so we
> > > don't need to change any callers.
> >
> > This patch does more than the commit message says; it also refactors
> > the body of the function. (I would've moved that refactoring over into
> > patch 2, but I guess this works, too.)
> >
> > [...]
> > > -struct file *anon_inode_getfile(const char *name,
> > > -                               const struct file_operations *fops,
> > > -                               void *priv, int flags)
> > > +struct file *anon_inode_getfile2(const char *name,
> > > +                                const struct file_operations *fops,
> > > +                                void *priv, int flags, int anon_inode_flags)
> >
> > (AFAIK, normal kernel style is to slap a "__" prefix in front of the
> > function name instead of appending a digit, but I guess it doesn't
> > really matter.)
>
> I thought prefixing "_" was for signaling "this is an implementation
> detail and you probably don't want to call it unless you know what
> you're doing", not "here's a new version that does a new thing".

Ah, I guess that might be true.