linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 4/5] tracing: Remove conditional locking from __DO

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: <42ef4bd2-0436-4a1c-b88c-73101dbbf77a@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2024 23:32:29 +0100
From: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>
To: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>, Linus Torvalds
	<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Mathieu Desnoyers
	<mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"Michael Jeanson" <mjeanson@...icios.com>, Masami Hiramatsu
	<mhiramat@...nel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Yonghong Song
	<yhs@...com>, "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar
	<mingo@...hat.com>, "Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo" <acme@...nel.org>, Mark
 Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, Alexander Shishkin
	<alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>, <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Joel
 Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>, Jordan Rife <jrife@...gle.com>,
	<linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Nick Desaulniers
	<ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/5] tracing: Remove conditional locking from
 __DO_TRACE()

On 11/26/24 21:47, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 10:13:43AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 at 00:46, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Using that (old) form results in:
>>>
>>>      error: control reaches end of non-void function [-Werror=return-type]
>>
>> Ahh. Annoying, but yeah.
>>
>>> Except of course, now we get that dangling-else warning, there is no
>>> winning this :-/
>>
>> Well, was there any actual problem with the "jump backwards" version?
>> Przemek implied some problem, but ..
> 
> No, it was based on my feedback with "jump backwards" looking confusing
> to me.  But if it gets rid of a warning then we should use it instead.
> 
> Thanks.
> 

yeah, no problem per-se, just "a better" choice given properly formatted
code :|, will turn it the other way, to have less surprises for those
not stressing about such aesthetic all the time ;)

--
BTW shadowing of the goto-label is not a -Wshadow but a -Wfckoff level
of complain; I have spend a few days to think of something better,
including abusing of switch and more ugly things, -ENOIDEA