linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 14/18] static_call: Add static_cond

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]

Message-ID: <20200508154704.6njw5wfsain7p3ev@treble>
Date:   Fri, 8 May 2020 10:47:04 -0500
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        mhiramat@...nel.org, bristot@...hat.com, jbaron@...mai.com,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
        mingo@...nel.org, namit@...are.com, hpa@...or.com, luto@...nel.org,
        ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org, pbonzini@...hat.com,
        mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 14/18] static_call: Add static_cond_call()

On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 05:27:30PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 12:24:55PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> 
> > On that note, what do you think about tweaking the naming from
> > 
> >   DEFINE_STATIC_COND_CALL(name, typename);
> >   static_cond_call(name)(args...);
> > 
> > to
> > 
> >   DEFINE_STATIC_CALL_NO_FUNC(name, typename);
> >   static_call_if_func(name)(args...);
> > 
> > ?
> > 
> > Seems clearer to me.  They're still STATIC_CALLs, so it seems logical to
> > keep those two words together.  And NO_FUNC clarifies the initialized
> > value.
> > 
> > Similarly RETTRAMP could be ARCH_DEFINE_STATIC_CALL_NO_FUNC.
> 
> So I dislike static_call_if_func(), that's so much typing. Also, I
> prefer ARCH_*_RETTRAMP as it clearly describes what the thing is.
> 
> How is something like this? 

I like DEFINE_STATIC_CALL_NULL.  I also like the new comment.

And if you're calling it

  DEFINE_STATIC_CALL_NULL

then it seems like

  ARCH_DEFINE_STATIC_CALL_NULL

would be the logical name rather than RETTRAMP?

Still not crazy about static_cond_call(), though I think at least
changing it to static_call_cond() would be better for namespacing
reasons.

-- 
Josh