linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] entry: Pass pt_regs to irqentry_exit_cond

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:   Mon, 8 Aug 2022 19:52:09 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc:     Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] entry: Pass pt_regs to
 irqentry_exit_cond_resched()

On Mon, Aug 08, 2022 at 10:43:35AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> Might have been me.  Function calls that look like this:
> 
> 	foo(&ptr, false, true, false, true, 1, 0);
> 
> are incomprehensible.  A true/false is effectively a magic number here
> and you have to go looking at the code implementing 'foo()' or at least
> the declaration hoping that the variable names help (if the declaration
> has variable names).

Yap, agreed.

It would start getting on my nerves after the second bool. :)

> I think I've encouraged Ira to do something like this instead:
> 
> enum foo_mode {
> 	MODE_BAR,
> 	MODE_BAZ
> }
> 
> where the call ends up looking like:
> 
> 	foo(&ptr, MODE_BAR);
> 
> which is much more self-documenting.

Yap, that's much better.

I suggested the bool thing in thinking that this would be the only
exception to the usage, i.e., a one-off thing. I probably should talk
to Jürgen whether we even need this one-off thing and maybe solve it
differently.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette