linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 8/8] ucounts: delete these duplicate static variables ue_zero and ue_int

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]

Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 15:28:48 +0100
From: Joel Granados <j.granados@...sung.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
CC: <wenyang.linux@...mail.com>, Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>, Kees
	Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
	<davem@...emloft.net>, David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>, Eric Dumazet
	<edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni
	<pabeni@...hat.com>, Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] ucounts: delete these duplicate static variables
 ue_zero and ue_int_max

On Sun, Feb 25, 2024 at 06:29:33AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> wenyang.linux@...mail.com writes:
> 
> > From: Wen Yang <wenyang.linux@...mail.com>
> >
> > Since these static variables (ue_zero and ue_int_max) are only used for
> > boundary checks and will not be changed, remove it and use the ones in
> > our shared const array.
> 
> What happened to the plans to kill the shared const array?
I agree with removing sysctl_vals. I wanted to get more info but was not
able to find much in lore.kernel.org. I was wondering if the push
towards removing it had been discussed in the lists? Or was it more like
a conference hallway discussion?

Best
> 
> You can still save a lot more by turning .extra1 and .extra2
> into longs instead of keeping them as pointers and needing
> constants to be pointed at somewhere.
> 
> As I recall the last version of this actually broke the code,
> (but not on little endian).
> 
> This one if the constants are properly named looks better
> than that, but I don't see any reason why you want shared
> constants for such a handful of things.  Especially when
> it has proven to be error prone in the past.
> 
> The only people I can see who find a significant benefit by
> consolidating all of the constants into one place are people who know
> how to stomp kernel memory.
> 
> Eric
> 

-- 

Joel Granados

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (660 bytes)