linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2] cleanup: Add cond

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: <65b98e8d4f405_2f26102943c@iweiny-mobl.notmuch>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2024 16:04:29 -0800
From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
	"Fabio M. De Francesco" <fabio.maria.de.francesco@...ux.intel.com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC: "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fabio.maria.de.francesco@...ux.intel.com>, "Peter
 Zijlstra" <peterz@...radead.org>, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
	"Ira Weiny" <ira.weiny@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] cleanup: Add cond_guard() to conditional guards

Dan Williams wrote:
> Ira Weiny wrote:
> > Dan Williams wrote:
> > > Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> > > > Add cond_guard() to conditional guards.
> > > > 
> > > > cond_guard() is used for the _interruptible(), _killable(), and _try
> > > > versions of locks. It expects a block where the failure can be handled
> > > > (e.g., calling printk() and returning -EINTR in case of failure).
> > > > 
> > > > As the other guards, it avoids to open code the release of the lock
> > > > after a goto to an 'out' label.
> > > > 
> > > > This remains an RFC because Dan suggested a slightly different syntax:
> > > > 
> > > > 	if (cond_guard(...))
> > > > 		return -EINTR;
> > > > 
> > > > But the scoped_cond_guard() macro omits the if statement:
> > > > 
> > > >     	scoped_cond_guard (...) {
> > > >     	}
> > > > 
> > > > Thus define cond_guard() similarly to scoped_cond_guard() but with a block
> > > > to handle the failure case:
> > > > 
> > > > 	cond_guard(...)
> > > > 		return -EINTR;
> > > 
> > > That's too subtle for me, because of the mistakes that can be made with
> > > brackets how about a syntax like:
> > > 
> > >  	cond_guard(..., return -EINTR, ...)
> > > 
> > > ...to make it clear what happens if the lock acquisition fails without
> > > having to remember there is a hidden incomplete "if ()" statement in
> > > that macro? More below...
> > 
> > I sympathize with the hidden "if" being confusing but there is already
> > precedent in the current *_guard macros.  So I'd like to know if Peter has
> > an opinion.
> 
> What are you asking specifically? The current scoped_cond_guard()
> already properly encapsulates the "if ()" and takes an "_fail" so why
> wouldn't cond_guard() also safely encpsulate an "if ()" and take an
> "_fail" statement argument?

Maybe I misunderstood you.  I thought you were advocating that the 'if'
would not be encapsulated.  And I was wondering if Peter had an opinion.

But if you are agreeing with the direction of this patch regarding the if
then ignore me.

Ira