linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/13] Rename k[v]free_rcu() single argument to k[v]free_rcu

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:   Wed, 15 Mar 2023 15:14:15 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     "Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)" <urezki@...il.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, RCU <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@...y.com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Philipp Reisner <philipp.reisner@...bit.com>,
        Bryan Tan <bryantan@...are.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Bob Pearson <rpearsonhpe@...il.com>,
        Ariel Levkovich <lariel@...dia.com>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] Rename k[v]free_rcu() single argument to
 k[v]free_rcu_mightsleep()

On Wed,  1 Feb 2023 16:08:06 +0100
"Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)" <urezki@...il.com> wrote:

> This small series is based on Paul's "dev" branch. Head is 6002817348a1c610dc1b1c01ff81654cdec12be4
> it renames a single argument of k[v]free_rcu() to its new k[v]free_rcu_mightsleep() name.
> 
> 1.
> The problem is that, recently we have run into a precedent when
> a user intended to give a second argument to kfree_rcu() API but
> forgot to do it in a code so a call became as a single argument
> of kfree_rcu() API.
> 
> 2.
> Such mistyping can lead to hidden bags where sleeping is forbidden.
> 
> 3.
> _mightsleep() prefix gives much more information for which contexts
> it can be used for.

My honest opinion is that I hate that name "kvfree_rcu_mightsleep()" ;-)

As I honestly don't know why it might sleep.

I didn't care about the name before, but now that it's touching code I
maintain I do care ;-)

Why not call it:

 kvfree_rcu_synchronize()

?

As that is much more descriptive of what it does. Especially since these
ugly names are popping up in my code because kvfree_rcu() replaced a
rcu_synchronize() in the first place.

-- Steve