linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] ext4: rename xattr_find_entry() and __xattr_check

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: <Y5LJ1QU1JND2fuVK@mit.edu>
Date:   Fri, 9 Dec 2022 00:38:29 -0500
From:   "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
To:     Ye Bin <yebin@...weicloud.com>
Cc:     adilger.kernel@...ger.ca, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jack@...e.cz,
        Ye Bin <yebin10@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] ext4: rename xattr_find_entry() and
 __xattr_check_inode()

On Thu, Dec 08, 2022 at 10:32:32AM +0800, Ye Bin wrote:
> From: Ye Bin <yebin10@...wei.com>
> 
> Prepend ext4 prefix to function names of xattr_find_entry() and
> __xattr_check_inode() for consistency with other functions in ext4
> xattr module.

The reason why these function names don't have the ext4 prefix is
because functions are static, so there is need to worry about
namespace pollution.

For static functions, there is no real need to add the ext4 prefix, so
why not keep the functions shorter?  Yes, there are places where
static functions have the ext4 prefix.  The main reason why we have
changed it is that it's not worth the code churn.  Similarly, adding
the ext4 prefix is *definitely* not worth the code churn.

Cheers,

					- Ted