linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] xarray: Introduce devm_xa

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: <YshLYPTxyOosmSKt@casper.infradead.org>
Date:   Fri, 8 Jul 2022 16:21:04 +0100
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
Cc:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@...el.com>,
        Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] xarray: Introduce devm_xa_init()

On Fri, Jul 08, 2022 at 07:59:22AM -0700, Ira Weiny wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2022 at 03:53:50PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 05, 2022 at 04:21:57PM -0700, ira.weiny@...el.com wrote:
> > > The main issue I see with this is defining devm_xa_init() in device.h.
> > > This makes sense because a device is required to use the call.  However,
> > > I'm worried about if users will find the call there vs including it in
> > > xarray.h?
> > 
> > Honestly, I don't want users to find it.  This only makes sense if you're
> > already bought in to the devm cult.  I worry people will think that
> > they don't need to do anything else; that everything will be magically
> > freed for them, and we'll leak the objects pointed to from the xarray.
> > I don't even like having xa_destroy() in the API, because of exactly this.
> > 
> 
> Fair enough.  Are you ok with the concept though?

I'd rather have it in one place than open-coded in two.