linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rseq: update kernel fields in lockstep with CONFIG_DEBUG

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <Z72JYW0y7fUBSWll@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 10:12:01 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Michael Jeanson <mjeanson@...icios.com>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rseq: update kernel fields in lockstep with
 CONFIG_DEBUG_RSEQ


* Michael Jeanson <mjeanson@...icios.com> wrote:

> >> I always find it odd that the "source" argument comes first and 
> >> the "destination" argument comes second in all put_user() APIs, 
> >> compared to memcpy, WRITE_ONCE() and all assignments (e.g. 
> >> operator "=" LHS vs RHS). Choosing a different argument order 
> >> therefore made sense with a naming different from "*put_user", but 
> >> not so much if we use a derived naming.
> > 
> > Yeah, put_user()'s oddity is a random historic idiosyncrasy that we 
> > want to preserve in derived naming to reduce the potential for 
> > confusion.
> 
> Would that be ok?
> 
>   rseq_unsafe_put_user(t, value, field, error_label)

Yeah, I think so.

Thanks,

	Ingo