linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] linux/kernel.h: add container

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]

Date:   Thu, 27 Aug 2020 15:14:37 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
        Allen Pais <allen.lkml@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] linux/kernel.h: add container_from()

On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 10:36:36PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 01:46:33PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > You really have to pick some pretty excessive type names (or variable
> > names) to get close to 80 characters. Again, to pick an example:
> > 
> >         struct timer_group_priv *priv = container_of(handle,
> >                         struct timer_group_priv, timer[handle->num]);
> > 
> > ends up being long even if you were to split it, but that funky
> > container_from() wouldn't have helped the real problem - the fact that
> > the above is complex and nasty.

The point about doing the assignment with the declaration certainly makes
the "ugliness" worse, I agree. I'm still not generally convinced about
the redundancy level pros/cons, but I concede that having a common idiom
(rather than a succinct but subsystem-dependent idiom) is better for
people reading the code for the first time.

> > And I had to _search_ for that example. All the normal cases of
> > split-line container-of's were due to doing it with the declaration,
> > or beause the first argument ended up being an expression in itself
> > and the nested expressions made it more complex.
> 
> Speaking of searching, this kind of typeof use is, IMO, actively
> harmful - it makes finding the places where we might get from
> e.g. linked list to containing objects much harder.  container_of
> (unless combined with obfuscating use of typeof()) at least gives
> you a chance to grep - struct foo *not* followed by '*' is a pattern
> that doesn't give too many false positives.  This one, OTOH, is
> essentially impossible to grep for.

And this observation about workflow does strike a chord with me. I do end
up with those kind of searches too. In trying to examine my preferences
here, I think my instincts are to avoid open-coded types (leading me to
want to use typeof()) but I think those instincts were actually developed
from dealing with _sizeof_ and all the way it goes terribly wrong. So,
okay, I'm convinced. container_of() it is.

Doing these conversions becomes a little less mechanical if assignment
needs to be split from declaration, but hey, we've got a 100 character
line "limit" now, so maybe it'll be less needed. :)

-- 
Kees Cook