linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] taging: speakup: remove volatile

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: <162676bb69044efadd31daa9ea49fc6fb9664297.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Fri, 22 May 2020 10:22:03 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@...-lyon.org>
Cc:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        MugilRaj <dmugil2000@...il.com>, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        Kirk Reiser <kirk@...sers.ca>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        speakup@...ux-speakup.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Chris Brannon <chris@...-brannons.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] taging: speakup: remove volatile

On Fri, 2020-05-22 at 19:13 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Joe Perches, le ven. 22 mai 2020 09:36:05 -0700, a ecrit:
> > On Fri, 2020-05-22 at 13:34 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 02:46:28PM +0530, MugilRaj wrote:
> > > > fix checkpatch.pl warning, which is Use of volatile is usually wrong: see
> > > > Documentation/process/volatile-considered-harmful.rst
> > > > Signed-off-by: MugilRaj <dmugil2000@...il.com>
> > > 
> > > Please put a blank before the Signed-off-by line.
> > > 
> > > Probably there should be a space between your first and last name.  It's
> > > supposed to your legal name like for signing a legal document so use
> > > whatever is appropriate legal documents in your country.
> > > 
> > > Also the Documentation/process/volatile-considered-harmful.rst explains
> > > that people often use "volatile" when they should be using locking for
> > > synchronization.  That seems to be the case here.  So the correct fix is
> > > to add locking.  That's a little bit complicated to do and requires
> > > testing.
> > > 
> > > If we apply this patch, then we have silenced the warning so now someone
> > > will have to look for the bug.  But if we leave it as-is, then everyone
> > > will know that the code is buggy.  So let's leave it as-is until we are
> > > able to fix the bug.
> > > 
> > > It's always better to have easy to find bugs, than hidden bugs.
> > 
> > And better still to comment known opportunities to
> > improve the code so the next time someone tries to
> > remove this volatile, there's a comment right there
> > showing what's necessary instead.
> 
> Actually I don't think adding the suggestion is a good thing if it's
> only a "rule-of-thumb-replace-volatile-with-lock".
> 
> Actually possibly volatile might not even be needed because there could
> be already a lock protecting this.
> 
> Put another way: I don't think putting any hint here would help, on the
> contrary, somebody has to really look at what protection is needed,
> without getting influenced by rules-of-thumb.

checkpatch newbies/robots will submit this change again otherwise.

Comment wording can always be improved.