netdev - RE: [PATCH net v3] net: Force inlining of checksum functions in net/checksum.h

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:   Fri, 18 Feb 2022 08:41:28 +0000
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:     'Masahiro Yamada' <masahiroy@...nel.org>
CC:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net v3] net: Force inlining of checksum functions in
 net/checksum.h

From: Masahiro Yamada
> Sent: 17 February 2022 17:27
> 
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 1:49 AM David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Masahiro Yamada
> > > Sent: 17 February 2022 16:17
> > ...
> > > No.  Not that one.
> > >
> > > The commit you presumably want to revert is:
> > >
> > > a771f2b82aa2 ("[PATCH] Add a section about inlining to
> > > Documentation/CodingStyle")
> > >
> > > This is now referred to as "__always_inline disease", though.
> >
> > That description is largely fine.
> >
> > Inappropriate 'inline' ought to be removed.
> > Then 'inline' means - 'really do inline this'.
> 
> 
> You cannot change "static inline" to "static"
> in header files.

You'd need some 'magicary' to get an extern except for a special
include that generated the visible function.
It has been done.

> If  "static inline" meant __always_inline,
> there would be no way to negate it.
> That's why we need both inline and __always_inline.

I'd go the other way, 'inline' and 'inline_for_code_bloat'
(or maybe inline_for_speed).
Much the same as the noinline's to stop stack bloat.

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)