linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] cleanup: adjust scoped_guard() to avoid potential warning

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: <Zv6SIHeN_nOWSH41@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2024 15:46:24 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
To: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, amadeuszx.slawinski@...ux.intel.com,
	Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
	nex.sw.ncis.osdt.itp.upstreaming@...el.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>, Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] cleanup: adjust scoped_guard() to avoid potential
 warning

On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 03:43:17PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 01:39:06PM +0200, Przemek Kitszel wrote:

...

> > +#define __scoped_guard_labeled(_label, _name, args...)			\
> > +	for (CLASS(_name, scope)(args);					\
> > +	     __guard_ptr(_name)(&scope) || !__is_cond_ptr(_name);	\
> > +		     ({ goto _label; }))				\
> > +		if (0)							\
> > +		_label:							\
> > +			break;						\
> > +		else
> 
> I believe the following will folow more the style we use in the kernel:
> 
> #define __scoped_guard_labeled(_label, _name, args...)			\
> 	for (CLASS(_name, scope)(args);					\
> 	     __guard_ptr(_name)(&scope) || !__is_cond_ptr(_name);	\
> 		     ({ goto _label; }))				\
> 		if (0) {						\
> _label:									\
> 			break;						\
> 		} else
> 
> ...
> 
> > -	     *done = NULL; !done; done = (void *)1) \
> > +	     *done = NULL; !done; done = (void *)1 +  	\
> 
> You have TABs/spaces mix in this line now.

And FWIW:
1) still NAKed;
2) interestingly you haven't mentioned that meanwhile I also helped you to
improve this version of the patch. Is it because I NAKed it?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko