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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20240326-daheim-aluminium-810603172600@brauner>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 14:19:41 +0100
From: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To: Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>
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

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.