netdev - Re: >Re: [RFC] should VM_BUG_ON(cond) really evaluate cond

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]

Date:	Sun, 30 Oct 2011 11:09:48 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: >Re: [RFC] should VM_BUG_ON(cond) really evaluate cond

On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
>
> As I said, because v can be a const pointer provided by the caller.
>
> Try it yourself and you'll discover hundred of call sites doing
>
> .... some_function(const struct *xxx, ...)
> {
>        if (atomic_read(&xxx->refcnt) <= 0)
>                do_something();

Argh. Ok. Testing a refcount in a const struct doesn't make much
sense, but there does seem to be perfectly valid uses of it
(sk_wmem_alloc etc).

Annoying. I guess we have to have those casts. Grr.

                        Linus
--
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