netdev - Re: [PATCH v5 6/8] tcp buffer limitation: per-cgroup limit

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: <4E8D6923.7080404@parallels.com>
Date:	Thu, 6 Oct 2011 12:38:59 +0400
From:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <paul@...lmenage.org>,
	<lizf@...fujitsu.com>, <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	<ebiederm@...ssion.com>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
	<gthelen@...gle.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-mm@...ck.org>, <kirill@...temov.name>,
	<avagin@...allels.com>, <devel@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 6/8] tcp buffer limitation: per-cgroup limit

On 10/05/2011 12:58 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le mercredi 05 octobre 2011 à 12:08 +0400, Glauber Costa a écrit :
>> On 10/04/2011 04:48 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>>> 2) Could you add const qualifiers when possible to your pointers ?
>>
>> Well, I'll go over the patches again and see where I can add them.
>> Any specific place site you're concerned about?
>
> Everywhere its possible :
>
> It helps reader to instantly knows if a function is about to change some
> part of the object or only read it, without reading function body.
Sure it does.

So, give me your opinion on this:

most of the acessors inside struct sock do not modify the pointers,
but return an address of an element inside it (that can later on be
modified by the caller.

I think it is fine for the purpose of clarity, but to avoid warnings we 
end up having to do stuff like this:

+#define CONSTCG(m) ((struct mem_cgroup *)(m))
+long *tcp_sysctl_mem(const struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
+{
+       return CONSTCG(memcg)->tcp.tcp_prot_mem;
+}

Is it acceptable?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html