linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] linux/container_of.h: Warn about loss of constness

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: <Y1ZcyBd2Yjir/dNO@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 24 Oct 2022 12:37:12 +0300
From:   'Andy Shevchenko' <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>
Cc:     Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] linux/container_of.h: Warn about loss of constness

On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 09:34:42AM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> From: Andy Shevchenko
> > Sent: 24 October 2022 10:23

...

> > > > Wait, no one uses this macro, so why not just remove it entirely?
> > >
> > > Good question. It appears to be a (relatively) common pattern to look up
> > > something and the return its containing object if the lookup was
> > > successful. Doing a quick
> > >
> > > 	$ git grep 'container_of.*:' drivers include
> > >
> > > reveals more than 20 instances of the pattern. There are probably more
> > > those that use if for testing for NULL. I guess people don't know about
> > > this macro, apart from the developers of the staging driver it was added
> > > for (commit 05e6557b8ed833546ee2b66ce6b58fecf09f439e).
> > 
> > Maybe we can provide an example to keep this macro in the kernel, meaning
> > convert one of the drivers / subsystem to actually use it?
> 
> Adding _safe() to a function name doesn't actually tell you anything.
> You still need to look up what it is 'safe' against.
> 
> In this case the full code pattern is actually much clearer.
> 
> It is also quite likely that it is followed by an:
> 	if (!ptr)
> 		return xxx;
> You that can/should really be put before the container_of() call.

return statements in macros are no go. Or you meant something else?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko