linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v3 1/5] cleanup: Fix discarded const warning when defining lock guard

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: <87a5mlotc5.fsf@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 09:23:22 -0700
From: Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Cc: amir73il@...il.com, hu1.chen@...el.com, miklos@...redi.hu,
 malini.bhandaru@...el.com, tim.c.chen@...el.com, mikko.ylinen@...el.com,
 lizhen.you@...el.com, linux-unionfs@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v3 1/5] cleanup: Fix discarded const warning when defining
 lock guard

Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org> writes:

> On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 11:53:12AM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 05:50:55PM -0700, Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote:
>> > Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org> writes:
>> > 
>> > >
>> > > So something like this? (Amir?)
>> > >
>> > >  
>> > > -DEFINE_LOCK_GUARD_1(cred, const struct cred, _T->lock = override_creds_light(_T->lock),
>> > > -	     revert_creds_light(_T->lock));
>> > > +DEFINE_LOCK_GUARD_1(cred, struct cred,
>> > > +		    _T->lock = (struct cred *)override_creds_light(_T->lock),
>> > > +		    revert_creds_light(_T->lock));
>> > > +
>> > > +#define cred_guard(_cred) guard(cred)(((struct cred *)_cred))
>> > > +#define cred_scoped_guard(_cred) scoped_guard(cred, ((struct cred *)_cred))
>> > >  
>> > >  /**
>> > >   * get_new_cred_many - Get references on a new set of credentials
>> > 
>> > Thinking about proposing a PATCH version (with these suggestions applied), Amir
>> > has suggested in the past that I should propose two separate series:
>> >  (1) introducing the guard helpers + backing file changes;
>> >  (2) overlayfs changes;
>> > 
>> > Any new ideas about this? Or should I go with this plan?
>> 
>> I mean make it two separate patches and I can provide Amir with a stable
>> branch for the cleanup guards. I think that's what he wanted.
>
> But send them out in one series ofc. Amir and I can sort this if needed.

Yeah, understood.


Thank you,
-- 
Vinicius