linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 1/2] devcoredump: remove the useless gfp_t parameter in dev_coredumpv and dev

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: <CA+ASDXNN81VczMTUt8=AyeytbMjy2vAGi_aVW_MNha9D99Z5VA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 22 Aug 2022 11:21:36 -0700
From:   Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
To:     Duoming Zhou <duoming@....edu.cn>
Cc:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        amit karwar <amitkarwar@...il.com>,
        Ganapathi Bhat <ganapathi017@...il.com>,
        Sharvari Harisangam <sharvari.harisangam@....com>,
        Xinming Hu <huxinming820@...il.com>, kvalo@...nel.org,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        "<netdev@...r.kernel.org>" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/2] devcoredump: remove the useless gfp_t parameter in
 dev_coredumpv and dev_coredumpm

Hi,

On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 8:47 AM <duoming@....edu.cn> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 16:58:01 +0200 Greg KH wrote:
> > No, that is not necessary.  Do the work now so that there is no flag day
> > and you don't have to worry about new users, it will all "just work".
>
> Do you mean we should replace dev_set_name() in dev_coredumpm() to some other
> functions that could work both in interrupt context and process context?

No.

I believe the suggestion is that rather than change the signature for
dev_coredumpv() (which means everyone has to agree on the new
signature on day 1), you should introduce a new API, like
dev_coredumpv_noatomic() (I'm not good at naming [1]) with the
signature you want, and then migrate users over. Once we have a
release with no users of the old API, we drop it.

There are plenty of examples of the kernel community doing similar
transitions. You can search around for examples, but a quick search of
my own shows something like this:
https://lwn.net/Articles/735887/
(In particular, timer_setup() was introduced, and all setup_timer()
users were migrated to it within a release or two.)

Brian

[1] Seriously, dev_coredumpv_noatomic() is not a name I want to see
last very long. Maybe some other trivial modification? Examples:

dev_core_dumpv()
dev_coredump_v()
device_coredumpv()
...