linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/8] cxl/mem: Move some definitions to mem.h

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:   Tue, 13 Apr 2021 17:18:41 -0700
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:     Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
Cc:     linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org, Linux PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Weiny, Ira" <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
        Vishal L Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
        "Schofield, Alison" <alison.schofield@...el.com>,
        Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@...el.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/8] cxl/mem: Move some definitions to mem.h

On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 10:47 AM Jonathan Cameron
<Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 07:30:47 -0700
> Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> wrote:
>
> > In preparation for sharing cxl.h with other generic CXL consumers,
> > move / consolidate some of the memory device specifics to mem.h.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@...el.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
>
> Hi Dan,
>
> Would be good to see something in this patch description saying
> why you chose to have mem.h rather than push the defines down
> into mem.c (which from the current code + patch set looks like
> the more logical thing to do).

The main motivation was least privilege access to memory-device
details, so they had to move out of cxl.h. As to why move them in to a
new mem.h instead of piling more into mem.c that's just a personal
organizational style choice to aid review. I tend to go to headers
first and read data structure definitions before reading the
implementation, and having that all in one place is cleaner than
interspersed with implementation details in the C code. It's all still
private to drivers/cxl/ so I don't see any "least privilege" concerns
with moving it there.

Does that satisfy your concern?

If yes, I'll add the above to v3.

> As a side note, docs for struct cxl_mem need a fix as they cover
> enabled_commands which at somepoint got shortened to enabled_cmds

Thanks, will fix.