linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ptp: Remove usage of the deprecated ida_simple

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:   Tue, 27 Sep 2022 11:32:42 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
Cc:     Bo Liu <liubo03@...pur.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ptp: Remove usage of the deprecated ida_simple_xxx API

On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 08:05:23 -0700 Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 08:01:28AM -0700, Richard Cochran wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 25, 2022 at 09:27:44PM -0400, Bo Liu wrote:  
> > > Use ida_alloc_xxx()/ida_free() instead of
> > > ida_simple_get()/ida_simple_remove().
> > > The latter is deprecated and more verbose.  
> > 
> > I can't say that I am excited about this.  It seems like a way to
> > create a regression.  I don't see any need to change.  After all,
> > there are many "deprecated" interfaces in use.  
> 
> /git/linux$ git grep ida_simple_get | wc -l
> 119
> 
> ~/git/linux$ git grep ida_simple_remove | wc -l
> 169
> 
> Please go take care of the other 100+ users of this API first, then
> come bother me again.

It's clearly marked as deprecated and the old API is literally
a define to the new one:

/*
 * ida_simple_get() and ida_simple_remove() are deprecated. Use
 * ida_alloc() and ida_free() instead respectively.
 */
#define ida_simple_get(ida, start, end, gfp)	\
			ida_alloc_range(ida, start, (end) - 1, gfp)
#define ida_simple_remove(ida, id)	ida_free(ida, id)


This transition is happening sooner or later. Do you have an objection
here or just don't want to review this? I can double check the ASM is
identical after applying...