linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] cleanup: Add conditional guard support

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20231103185143.GB26864@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 3 Nov 2023 19:51:43 +0100
From:   Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] cleanup: Add conditional guard support

On 11/03, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2 Nov 2023 at 23:30, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > Linus, do you like that enough to suffer a flag day patch as proposed by
> > Oleg?
>
> I don't find myself caring too much whether we have that "double
> grouping" of the guard type-vs-arguments or the "(type, arg...)"
> syntax.

Neither me,

> I honestly think that "guard(spinlock)(&lock)" makes it more visually
> obvious that the first argument is the "type of guard", while
> "guard(spinlock, &lock)" makes it look like the two arguments are
> somehow at the same level, which they most definitely aren't.

My point was that

	guard(spinlock)(&lock);

doesn't match

	scoped_guard(spinlock, &lock);

but I agree this purely cosmetic, so lets forget it.

Oleg.