linux-kernel - [RFC][PATCH 0/2] Lock and Pointer guards

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20230526150549.250372621@infradead.org>
Date:   Fri, 26 May 2023 17:05:49 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, keescook@...omium.org,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, pbonzini@...hat.com
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ojeda@...nel.org,
        ndesaulniers@...gle.com, peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com,
        will@...nel.org, longman@...hat.com, boqun.feng@...il.com,
        juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
        dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com,
        mgorman@...e.de, bristot@...hat.com, vschneid@...hat.com,
        paulmck@...nel.org, frederic@...nel.org, quic_neeraju@...cinc.com,
        joel@...lfernandes.org, josh@...htriplett.org,
        mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, jiangshanlai@...il.com,
        qiang1.zhang@...el.com, rcu@...r.kernel.org, tj@...nel.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: [RFC][PATCH 0/2] Lock and Pointer guards

Hi!

Yesterday I was annoyed for the lack of RAII lock guards for entirely spurious
reason, but since you sometimes gotta do silly things I spend today creating some.

My initial (failed) attempts tried to combine __cleanup, _Generic and
__auto_type, but the compilers refused. I've also Googled around and found
(among many others) the QEMU and Glib guards. However I don't like them because
they end up relying on function pointers/indirect calls.

Hence the current pile of CPP hackery.. no indirect calls in sight.

I really like how they end up simplifying the code, but perhaps y'all hate them
with a passion?

I'm thinking we'll at least have a good brawl over naming, esp. the void_guard
needs a better name.

Compile and boot tested with x86_64-defconfig.