[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZTrJ/5Jrzz5D62hh@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2023 23:20:15 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>,
Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Yun Zhou <yun.zhou@...driver.com>,
Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>,
Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>,
linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] seq_buf: Introduce DECLARE_SEQ_BUF and seq_buf_str()
On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 12:40:37PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> Solve two ergonomic issues with struct seq_buf;
>
> 1) Too much boilerplate is required to initialize:
>
> struct seq_buf s;
> char buf[32];
>
> seq_buf_init(s, buf, sizeof(buf));
>
> Instead, we can build this directly on the stack. Provide
> DECLARE_SEQ_BUF() macro to do this:
>
> DECLARE_SEQ_BUF(s, 32);
>
> 2) %NUL termination is fragile and requires 2 steps to get a valid
> C String (and is a layering violation exposing the "internals" of
> seq_buf):
>
> seq_buf_terminate(s);
> do_something(s->buffer);
>
> Instead, we can just return s->buffer direction after terminating it
> in refactored seq_buf_terminate(), now known as seq_buf_str():
>
> do_soemthing(seq_buf_str(s));
...
> +#define DECLARE_SEQ_BUF(NAME, SIZE) \
> + char __ ## NAME ## _buffer[SIZE] = ""; \
> + struct seq_buf NAME = { .buffer = &__ ## NAME ## _buffer, \
> + .size = SIZE }
Hmm... Wouldn't be more readable to have it as
#define DECLARE_SEQ_BUF(NAME, SIZE) \
char __ ## NAME ## _buffer[SIZE] = ""; \
struct seq_buf NAME = { \
.buffer = &__ ## NAME ## _buffer, \
.size = SIZE, \
}
?
...
> +static inline char *seq_buf_str(struct seq_buf *s)
> {
> if (WARN_ON(s->size == 0))
> - return;
> + return "";
I'm wondering why it's a problem to have an empty string?
> if (seq_buf_buffer_left(s))
> s->buffer[s->len] = 0;
> else
> s->buffer[s->size - 1] = 0;
> +
> + return s->buffer;
> }
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists