linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] configfs: Constify some fileds in struct config_item

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: <76bfdeaf-3c95-4cf2-a210-9d3f069b5707@wanadoo.fr>
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2025 14:13:29 +0100
From: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
To: Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>, leitao@...ian.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] configfs: Constify some fileds in struct
 config_item_type

Le 29/10/2025 à 08:18, Andreas Hindborg a écrit :
> "Christophe JAILLET" <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr> writes:
> 
>> These 2 patches constify ct_item_ops and ct_group_ops in struct
>> config_item_type.
>>
>> When/if they are applied, I'll send some patchess in each subsystem to
>> constify the corresponding structures.
>>
>> This 2 steps approach is IMHO easier way to make these changes.
>> This avoids long series and cover-letter/first patches sent to many
>> maintainers and lists.
>>
>> However, if you prefer things to be done in the same serie, I can do
>> that as well.
> 
> Looks good to me. Please also include a patch to fix up the rust
> bindings in the 2nd step:
> 
> diff --git a/rust/kernel/configfs.rs b/rust/kernel/configfs.rs
> index 318a2f073d1c7..468c8c4170d5e 100644
> --- a/rust/kernel/configfs.rs
> +++ b/rust/kernel/configfs.rs
> @@ -755,8 +755,8 @@ pub const fn new_with_child_ctor<const N: usize, Child>(
>                   Self {
>                       item_type: Opaque::new(bindings::config_item_type {
>                           ct_owner: owner.as_ptr(),
> -                        ct_group_ops: GroupOperationsVTable::<Data, Child>::vtable_ptr().cast_mut(),
> -                        ct_item_ops: ItemOperationsVTable::<$tpe, Data>::vtable_ptr().cast_mut(),
> +                        ct_group_ops: GroupOperationsVTable::<Data, Child>::vtable_ptr(),
> +                        ct_item_ops: ItemOperationsVTable::<$tpe, Data>::vtable_ptr(),
>                           ct_attrs: core::ptr::from_ref(attributes).cast_mut().cast(),
>                           ct_bin_attrs: core::ptr::null_mut(),
>                       }),
> @@ -773,7 +773,7 @@ pub const fn new<const N: usize>(
>                       item_type: Opaque::new(bindings::config_item_type {
>                           ct_owner: owner.as_ptr(),
>                           ct_group_ops: core::ptr::null_mut(),
> -                        ct_item_ops: ItemOperationsVTable::<$tpe, Data>::vtable_ptr().cast_mut(),
> +                        ct_item_ops: ItemOperationsVTable::<$tpe, Data>::vtable_ptr(),
>                           ct_attrs: core::ptr::from_ref(attributes).cast_mut().cast(),
>                           ct_bin_attrs: core::ptr::null_mut(),
>                       }),
> 

I'm not a big fan of mixing c and rs files updates in the same commit.
And, as I don't know rust, I'm reluctant to changes things that I don't 
understand and I'm not able to at least compile test.

Can s.o. send this change as a follow-up patch?

CJ

> 
> 
> Best regards,
> Andreas Hindborg
> 
> 
> 
>