[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240502091837.GA30852@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2024 11:18:37 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Erick Archer <erick.archer@...look.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
"Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf/ring_buffer: Prefer struct_size over open coded
arithmetic
On Wed, May 01, 2024 at 01:21:42PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 11:15:04AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 07:40:58PM +0200, Erick Archer wrote:
> > > This is an effort to get rid of all multiplications from allocation
> > > functions in order to prevent integer overflows [1][2].
> >
> > So personally I detest struct_size() because I can never remember wtf it
> > does, whereas the code it replaces is simple and straight forward :/
>
> Sure, new APIs can involved a learning curve. If we can all handle
> container_of(), we can deal with struct_size(). :)
containre_of() is actually *much* shorter than typing it all out. Which
is a benefit.
struct_size() not so much. That's just obfuscation for obfuscation's
sake.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists