linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 21/24] rcu/tiny: move kvfree_call

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: <20200507173444.GA12883@pc636>
Date:   Thu, 7 May 2020 19:34:44 +0200
From:   Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc:     Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Theodore Y . Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        RCU <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
        Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@...ymobile.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 21/24] rcu/tiny: move kvfree_call_rcu() out of header

> > 
> > Please see full log here: ftp://vps418301.ovh.net/incoming/include_mm_h_output.txt
> > 
> > I can fix it by adding the kvfree() declaration to the rcutiny.h also:
> > extern void kvfree(const void *addr);
> > 
> > what seems wired to me? Also it can be fixed if i move it to the tiny.c
> > so it will be aligned with the way how it is done for tree-RCU.
> 
> If the mm guys are OK with the kvfree() declaration, that is the way
> to go.  With the addition of a comment saying something like "Avoid
> #include hell".
> 
> The compiler will complain if the definition changes given that there
> has to be somewhere that sees both the above and the real declaration,
> so this should not cause too much trouble.
> 
> > Any valuable proposals?
> 
> Otherwise, yes, the function would need to move to tiny.c and thus add
> bloat.  :-(
> 

OK. I will declare it one more time. Indeed if it is changed, the
compiler will emit some errors. Also, i will add some comments why
it is done.

Thanks!

--
Vlad Rezki