linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 01/12] mm/shmem: 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <843b5ccb-ef37-4398-b6e5-5f1d997acd77@lucifer.local>
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2025 09:52:26 +0100
From: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
To: Max Kellermann <max.kellermann@...os.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, david@...hat.com, axelrasmussen@...gle.com,
        yuanchu@...gle.com, willy@...radead.org, hughd@...gle.com,
        mhocko@...e.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Liam.Howlett@...cle.com, vbabka@...e.cz, rppt@...nel.org,
        surenb@...gle.com, vishal.moola@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/12] mm/shmem: add `const` to lots of pointer
 parameters

On Mon, Sep 01, 2025 at 10:01:16AM +0200, Max Kellermann wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 1, 2025 at 9:44 AM Lorenzo Stoakes
> <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 01, 2025 at 08:12:12AM +0200, Max Kellermann wrote:
> > > For improved const-correctness.
> >
> > This is not an acceptable commit message, you need to explain what you're doing
> > here.
> >
> > I'm thinking that review will be the same for each...
> >
> > For instance, reference the fact you're starting with functions at the bottom of
> > the call graph,
>
> My 00/12 already describes that adding "const" to mm addresses the
> lowest level so higher levels (outside the scope of this patch set)
> are able to constify their APIs.

I actually found your cover letter lacking there also as reviewed.

It is simply not acceptable in the kernel to have a commit message like
this. If you want to argue, that's up to you, but your series won't be
merged.

So overall - we're fine with this kind of duplication even for a 'trivial'
series.

Describe why you're doing, it why these functions.

Something like 'In efforts to const-ify poitner parameters where
appropriate, we start by adjusting those which invoke no other function,
with the intent of working our way up gradually. Here we address functions
relating to shmem.'

etc.

As David said on the other thread, you'd use your energy more usefully
simply doing what's asked of you.

Review is a limited resource, please have some empathy for the human beings
behind the screen :)

>
> Other than that, there is exactly one dependency between the patches,
> and that is documented in the commit message of 06/12. The rest has no
> "bottom" or "top" that I could describe. All other patches are
> standalone.
>
> > and mention which functions you're changing.
>
> So you want to have a list of function names in the commit message?
> Maybe I'll write a Perl one-liner to extract that from the diff, but
> .... will that really be helpful? To me, it looks like noise in a
> patch set as trivial as this one.

By all means use a script to figure it out, but use full english sentences
to describe intent and what you're doing.

Thanks.