linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 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-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <8b08772b-a69c-1f00-a43f-afcc5861ab4e@efficios.com>
Date:   Sat, 27 May 2023 13:21:58 -0400
From:   Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        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, 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,
        jiangshanlai@...il.com, rcu@...r.kernel.org, tj@...nel.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Lock and Pointer guards

On 5/26/23 16:52, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> By popular demand, a new and improved version :-)
> 
> New since -v1 ( https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230526150549.250372621@infradead.org )
> 
>   - much improved interface for lock guards: guard() and scoped () { }
>     as suggested by Linus.

<name bikeshedding>

I know I'm the one who hinted at C++ "std::scoped_lock" as a similar 
preexisting API, but I find that "scoped()" is weird in the newly 
proposed form. "scoped_lock" is fine considering that "scoped" is an 
adjective applying to "lock", but in the case of e.g. scoped(rcu) { }, 
then we are really declaring a "scope" of type "rcu". I suspect that in 
this case:

scope(rcu) { }

would be less unexpected than the adjective form:

scoped(rcu) { }

Especially if we go for the name "guard()", rather than the adjective 
guarded(), for its counterpart.

Thanks,

Mathieu


-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
https://www.efficios.com