linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 12/12] use less confusing names for iov

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: <CAHk-=wgMAxxw3n5gvURUV68zHr6vXbcvhXSzXdi2obKo2bK=Dw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 28 Oct 2022 10:09:51 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, willy@...radead.org,
        dchinner@...hat.com, Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>,
        Shyam Prasad N <nspmangalore@...il.com>,
        Rohith Surabattula <rohiths.msft@...il.com>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
        Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>, linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/12] use less confusing names for iov_iter direction initializers

On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 10:02 AM David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> > Honestly, I think the *real* fix would be a type-based one. Don't do
> >
> >         iov_iter_kvec(&iter, ITER_DEST, ...
> >
> > at all, but instead have two different kinds of 'struct iov_iter': one
> > as a destination (iov_iter_dst), and one as a source (iov_iter_src),
>
> Or maybe something along the lines of iov_iter_into_kvec() and
> iov_iter_from_kvec()?

For the type-based ones, you would need that to initialize the two cases.

But without the type-based approach, it ends up being yet another case
of "you just have to use the right name, and if you don't, you won't
know until the dynamic WARN_ON() tells you".

And the dynamic WARN_ON() (or, WARN_ON_ONCE(), as it should be) is
great, but only for the drivers that get active testing by developers
and robots.

Which leaves potentially a _lot_ of random code that ends up being
wrong for years.

I really like static checking that actually gets noticed by the
compiler when you get it wrong.

It may not be entirely realistic in this situation, but it would be
really nice to try...

                  Linus