linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/7] rbtree: Add generic add and find helpers

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]

Message-ID: <20200430092648.GB13616@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Thu, 30 Apr 2020 11:26:48 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dave@...olabs.net, mingo@...nel.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de, oleg@...hat.com, irogers@...gle.com,
        juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/7] rbtree: Add generic add and find helpers

On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 10:46:17AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 06:04:05PM -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote:

> > - Have you considered passing a cmp() function to rb_add() and
> >   rb_add_cached(), and having these test cmp() < 0 rather than less() ?
> >   I figure every user will need to have a cmp() function, so it'd be
> >   nicer if they didn't also need a less() function, if the generated
> >   code is similar (if you checked and rejected it because of bad code,
> >   please just say so).
> 
> I did consider it; in fact I my original helpers had that.
> 
> The reaosn I went with less() over cmp() is that the add() vs find()
> function signatures:
> 
>   bool (*less)(struct rb_node *, const struct rb_node *);
>   int (*cmp)(const void *, const struct rb_node *);
> 
> differ anyway in the left-hand argument; this is 'fixable' when you
> use an (on-stack) dummy object for find (as uprobes does), but that
> doesn't always work, esp. when the object is big. And given you need two
> functions anyway, I figured it was useful to name them differently.
> 
> If you've looked at the other patches a bit, you'll see I've implemented
> both functions as 'trivial' wrappers around a single compare function in
> many cases.

I just realized I'd already done all this at some point ;-) See
rbtree_latch.h. Clearly I failed to realize the full potential back when
I did that.