linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: add `const` to lots of pointer parameters

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: <372a00c8-86e5-4a73-a1e0-ffb8502ccee0@lucifer.local>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2025 13:43:28 +0100
From: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
To: Max Kellermann <max.kellermann@...os.com>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        Liam.Howlett@...cle.com, vbabka@...e.cz, rppt@...nel.org,
        surenb@...gle.com, mhocko@...e.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: add `const` to lots of pointer parameters

On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 02:40:29PM +0200, Max Kellermann wrote:
> > On 28.08.25 14:24, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 27, 2025 at 09:22:33PM +0200, Max Kellermann wrote:
> > >> For improved const-correctness.
> > >
> > > 'const-correctness' in C is extremely weak.
>
> "const correctness" is a commonly used term for this concept, and I
> find your arguments against const-correctness "extremely weak". I

Max, don't speak to me like this, it's disrespectful and unnecessary.

> So you suggest splitting the patch into many? I can do that, but will
> it be merged then, or will Lorenzo be able block it? Will further
> const-correctness changes from others (e.g. Willy) be rejected, too?

Also this is totally unacceptable. Speak to people with respect on the
mailing list. This is not how to interact here.

Thanks, Lorenzo