linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 4/8] mm: Separate fault info out of 'struct vm

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, 14 Jan 2021 11:09:01 -0800
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Vinayak Menon <vinmenon@...eaurora.org>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@...roid.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/8] mm: Separate fault info out of 'struct vm_fault'

On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 11:00 AM Will Deacon <will@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> I tried that initially, but I found that I had to make all of the
> members const to get it to work, at which point the anonymous struct
> wasn't really adding anything. Did I just botch the syntax?

I'm not sure what you tried. But this stupid test-case sure works for me:

    struct hello {
        const struct {
                unsigned long address;
        };
        unsigned int flags;
    };

    extern int fn(struct hello *);

    int test(void)
    {
        struct hello a = {
                .address = 1,
        };
        a.flags = 0;
        return fn(&a);
    }

and because "address" is in that unnamed constant struct, you can only
set it within that initializer, and cannot do

        a.address = 0;

without an error (the way you _can_ do "a.flags = 0").

I don't see naming the struct making a difference - apart from forcing
that big rename patch, of course.

But maybe we're talking about different issues?

            Linus