linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] powerpc/uaccess: Implement unsafe_put

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 16 Apr 2020 14:01:58 -0500
From:   Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
To:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>
Cc:     Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, npiggin@...il.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] powerpc/uaccess: Implement unsafe_put_user() using 'asm goto'

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 02:41:56PM +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> Le 16/04/2020 à 00:37, Segher Boessenkool a écrit :
> >>+	__put_user_nocheck_goto((__typeof__(*(ptr)))(x), (ptr), 
> >>sizeof(*(ptr)), label)
> >
> >This line gets too long, can you break it up somehow?
> 
> This line has 86 chars.

(And your mail program has wrapped it ;-) )

> powerpc arch tolerates lines with up to 90 chars, see 
> arch/powerpc/tools/checkpatch.sh

I *tolerate* it as well, sure, but long lines are bad for readability.
Like, I noticed it because it wrapped :-)

That "90" thing is just dumb, we should get rid of it.  Sometimes you
can have long lines, if that is better than the alternatives.  There
does not need to be a ridiculous "rule" that is unhappy *both* ways!

(This is true for many things in checkpatch, btw...  Rules of thumb,
not rules).

Segher