linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/13] seqnum_ops: Introduce Sequence Number Ops

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, 12 Nov 2020 09:59:02 -0700
From:   Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, corbet@....net,
        peterz@...radead.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/13] seqnum_ops: Introduce Sequence Number Ops

On 11/12/20 9:45 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 09:17:27AM -0700, Shuah Khan wrote:
>> On 11/12/20 5:36 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 12:23:03PM -0700, Shuah Khan wrote:
>>>>> Agreed: this is a clear wrapping sequence counter. It's only abuse would
>>>>> be using it in a place where wrapping actually is _not_ safe. (bikeshed:
>>>>> can we call it wrap_u32 and wrap_u64?)
>>>>
>>>> Still like seqnum_ops.
>>>>
>>>> There is seqcount_t in seqlock.h which is a totally different feature.
>>>
>>> Yes, and that's why this new thing, whatever it is called should not
>>> have the word "sequence" in it.  People will get it confused.
>>
>> Any suggestions for name. I am bad with coming up with names. How does
>> Statcnt API and struct statcnt along the lines of your name suggestions
>> in your previous email?
> 
> What does "stat" mean here?
> 

Stat doesn't really reflect what we are trying to do here and sequence
does. I am just looking to address confusion if any and make a call.

> And I don't understand the hesitation about "sequence" in a name, as
> that's exactly what this is.  seqlock is different, yes.
>  > How about "seqnum_t"?  That's what we call the sequence number that we
> export to uevents, a "SEQNUM".
> 

Good point.
This is what we have currently in patch v1 and let's just go with it.

thanks,
-- Shuah