linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/7] modules: Refactor within_module_core() and within_module

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 24 Jan 2022 13:01:08 +0000
From:   Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
CC:     Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>, Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        "kgdb-bugreport@...ts.sourceforge.net" 
        <kgdb-bugreport@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] modules: Refactor within_module_core() and
 within_module_init()



Le 24/01/2022 à 13:32, Christoph Hellwig a écrit :
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 09:22:15AM +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>> +static inline bool within_range(unsigned long addr, void *base, unsigned int size)
> 
> Please avoid the overly long line.
> 
> .. But given that this function only has a single caller I see no
> point in factoring it out anyway.

Patch 2 brings a second caller.

Having it in patch 1 reduces churn in patch 2. Is it the wrong way to do ?

Christophe