linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] list_debug: Introduce inline wrappers for debug checks

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: <CANpmjNPqfucNx7NdPOGSjjYgiZHntaBozGY1_rOSC4Wn4YCF1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 4 Aug 2023 20:08:10 +0200
From:   Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
        Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@...wei.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        kasan-dev@...glegroups.com, linux-toolchains@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] list_debug: Introduce inline wrappers for debug checks

On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 at 19:59, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 13:57:57 -0400
> Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 19:49:48 +0200
> > Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > I've been guilty of this madness myself, but I have learned the errors of
> > > > my ways, and have been avoiding doing so in any new code I write.
> > >
> > > That's fair. We can call them __list_*_valid() (inline), and
> > > __list_*_valid_or_report() ?
> >
> > __list_*_valid_check() ?

Well, in patch 3/3, the inline function will also do a reduced set of
checking, so "valid_check" is also misleading because both will do
checks.

The key distinguishing thing between the inline and non-inline version
is that the non-inline version will check more things, and also
produce reports.

So I can see

 1. __list_*_valid_or_report()
 2. __list_*_full_valid()

To be appropriate. Preference?

> I have to admit, I think the main reason kernel developers default to using
> these useless underscores is because kernel developers are notoriously
> lousy at naming. ;-)

Heh, naming is hard. ;-)