linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] jump_label: use atomic_try_cmpxchg in static_key_slow_inc

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20221123082647.4531eabf@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Wed, 23 Nov 2022 08:26:47 -0500
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
        Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] jump_label: use atomic_try_cmpxchg in
 static_key_slow_inc_cpuslocked

On Wed, 23 Nov 2022 10:08:59 +0100
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 04:14:46PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 
> > > +	for (int v = atomic_read(&key->enabled); v > 0; )  
> > 
> > Although it's permitted by the compiler, the kernel style is to not add
> > declarations in conditionals.  
> 
> I'm thinking the whole motivation for upping to C99 was exactly so that
> we could start using this pattern.

OK, if you are fine with it then sure. I personally like seeing all
variables declared in one place. Maybe because I've been trained that way,
and I can easily be confused when I see a variable somewhere and don't see
it in the beginning declarations.

-- Steve