linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv2 bpf-next 1/9] uprobe: Add support for session consumer

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: <CAEf4BzY9zi7pKmSmrCAqJ2GowZmCZ0EnZfA5f8YvxHRk2Pj8Zw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2024 11:31:11 -0700
From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, 
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, 
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, bpf@...r.kernel.org, Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>, 
	Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>, 
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>, 
	Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, 
	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 bpf-next 1/9] uprobe: Add support for session consumer

On Wed, Jul 3, 2024 at 1:10 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 01:51:28PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > > +static size_t ri_size(int sessions_cnt)
> > > +{
> > > +       struct return_instance *ri __maybe_unused;
> > > +
> > > +       return sizeof(*ri) + sessions_cnt * sizeof(ri->sessions[0]);
> >
> > just use struct_size()?
>
> Yeah, lets not. This is readable, struct_size() is not.

This hack with __maybe_unused is more readable than the standard
struct_size() helper that was added specifically for cases like this,
really?

I wonder if Kees agrees and whether there are any downsides to using
struct_size()

struct_size(struct return_instance, sessions, sessions_cnt) seems
readable enough to me, in any case.