linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 08/10] acpi/nfit: Improve terminator line in acpi_nfit

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:   Fri, 30 Jun 2023 13:13:41 +0200
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     "Wilczynski, Michal" <michal.wilczynski@...el.com>
Cc:     linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, dan.j.williams@...el.com,
        vishal.l.verma@...el.com, lenb@...nel.org, dave.jiang@...el.com,
        ira.weiny@...el.com, rui.zhang@...el.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, nvdimm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 08/10] acpi/nfit: Improve terminator line in acpi_nfit_ids

On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 1:04 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 11:52 AM Wilczynski, Michal
> <michal.wilczynski@...el.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 6/29/2023 6:14 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 6:51 PM Michal Wilczynski
> > > <michal.wilczynski@...el.com> wrote:
> > >> Currently terminator line contains redunant characters.
> > > Well, they are terminating the list properly AFAICS, so they aren't
> > > redundant and the size of it before and after the change is actually
> > > the same, isn't it?
> >
> > This syntax is correct of course, but we have an internal guidelines specifically
> > saying that terminator line should NOT contain a comma at the end. Justification:
> >
> > "Terminator line is established for the data structure arrays which may have unknown,
> > to the caller, sizes. The purpose of it is to stop iteration over an array and avoid
> > out-of-boundary access. Nevertheless, we may apply a bit more stricter rule to avoid
> > potential, but unlike, event of adding the entry after terminator, already at compile time.
> > This will be achieved by not putting comma at the end of terminator line"
>
> This certainly applies to any new code.
>
> The existing code, however, is what it is and the question is how much
> of an improvement the given change makes.
>
> So yes, it may not follow the current rules for new code, but then it
> may not be worth changing to follow these rules anyway.

This is a bit like housing in a city.

Usually, there are strict requirements that must be followed while
constructing a new building, but existing buildings are not
reconstructed to follow them in the majority of cases.  It may not
even be a good idea to do that.