linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 5/8] x86/e820: Refactor e820__range

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 26 Apr 2022 10:55:43 -0700
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     Martin Fernandez <martin.fernandez@...ypsium.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
        platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de,
        dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com,
        ardb@...nel.org, dvhart@...radead.org, andy@...radead.org,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, rafael@...nel.org, rppt@...nel.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, daniel.gutson@...ypsium.com,
        hughsient@...il.com, alex.bazhaniuk@...ypsium.com,
        alison.schofield@...el.com, keescook@...omium.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 5/8] x86/e820: Refactor e820__range_remove

On 4/26/22 10:37, Martin Fernandez wrote:
>> Also, in general, the naming is a bit verbose.  You might want to trim
>> some of those names down, like:
>>
>>> +static bool __init crypto_updater__should_update(const struct e820_entry
>>> *entry,
>>> +						 const void *data)
>>> +{
>>> +	const struct e820_crypto_updater_data *crypto_updater_data =
>>> +		(const struct e820_crypto_updater_data *)data;
> Yes I agree on this. Do you have any suggestions for these kind of
> functions? I want to explicitly state that these functions are in some of
> namespace and are different of the other ones.
> 
> In the end I don't think this is very harmful since these functions are one-time
> used (in a single place), is not the case that you have to use them everywhere..

Let's just start with the fact that this is a pointer to a structure
containing an enum that represents a single bit.  You could just pass
around an address to a bool:

	bool crypto_capable = *(bool *)data;

or even just pass and use the 'void *data' pointer as a value directly:

	bool crypto_capable = (bool)data;

That, for one, would get rid of some of the naming craziness.

If it were me, and I *really* wanted to keep the full types, I would
have just condensed that line down to:

	struct e820_crypto_updater_data *crypto_data = data;

Yeah, it _can_ be const, but it buys you practically nothing in this
case and only hurts readability.