linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] remove PDE

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: <20211115210917.96f681f0a75dfe6e1772dc6d@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Mon, 15 Nov 2021 21:09:17 -0800
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
Cc:     adobriyan@...il.com, gladkov.alexey@...il.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] remove PDE_DATA()

On Mon,  1 Nov 2021 17:35:14 +0800 Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com> wrote:

> I found a bug [1] some days ago, which is because we want to use
> inode->i_private to pass user private data. However, this is wrong
> on proc fs. We provide a specific function PDE_DATA() to get user
> private data. Actually, we can hide this detail by storing
> PDE()->data into inode->i_private and removing PDE_DATA() completely.
> The user could use inode->i_private to get user private data just
> like debugfs does. This series is trying to remove PDE_DATA().

Why can't we do

/*
 * comment goes here
 */
static inline void *PDE_DATA(struct inode *inode)
{
	return inode->i_private;
}

to abstract things a bit and to reduce the patch size?

otoh, that upper-case thing needs to go, so the patch size remains the
same anyway.

And perhaps we should have a short-term

#define PDE_DATA(i) pde_data(i)

because new instances are sure to turn up during the development cycle.

But I can handle that by staging the patch series after linux-next and
reminding myself to grep for new PDE_DATA instances prior to
upstreaming.