[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <192A6D7F-E803-47AE-9C7A-267B4E87C856@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2022 23:05:26 +0100
From: Jakob Koschel <jakobkoschel@...il.com>
To: Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
alsa-devel@...a-project.org, linux-aspeed@...ts.ozlabs.org,
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>,
linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Cristiano Giuffrida <c.giuffrida@...nl>,
amd-gfx list <amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
samba-technical@...ts.samba.org,
linux1394-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, drbd-dev@...ts.linbit.com,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
CIFS <linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org>,
KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-rdma <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, "Bos, H.J." <h.j.bos@...nl>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org,
kgdb-bugreport@...ts.sourceforge.net,
bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
Linux Media Mailing List <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Arnd Bergman <arnd@...db.de>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
intel-gfx <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Brian Johannesmeyer <bjohannesmeyer@...il.com>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>,
v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-tegra <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org,
linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux F2FS Dev Mailing List
<linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
tipc-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net,
Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
dma <dmaengine@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] treewide: remove using list iterator after loop body
as a ptr
> On 28. Feb 2022, at 21:56, Christian König <christian.koenig@....com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Am 28.02.22 um 21:42 schrieb James Bottomley:
>> On Mon, 2022-02-28 at 21:07 +0100, Christian König wrote:
>>> Am 28.02.22 um 20:56 schrieb Linus Torvalds:
>>>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 4:19 AM Christian König
>>>> <christian.koenig@....com> wrote:
>>>> [SNIP]
>>>> Anybody have any ideas?
>>> I think we should look at the use cases why code is touching (pos)
>>> after the loop.
>>>
>>> Just from skimming over the patches to change this and experience
>>> with the drivers/subsystems I help to maintain I think the primary
>>> pattern looks something like this:
>>>
>>> list_for_each_entry(entry, head, member) {
>>> if (some_condition_checking(entry))
>>> break;
>>> }
>>> do_something_with(entry);
There are other cases where the list iterator variable is used after the loop
Some examples:
- list_for_each_entry_continue() and list_for_each_entry_from().
- (although very rare) the head is actually of the correct struct type.
(ppc440spe_get_group_entry(): drivers/dma/ppc4xx/adma.c:1436)
- to use pos->list for example for list_add_tail():
(add_static_vm_early(): arch/arm/mm/ioremap.c:107)
If the scope of the list iterator is limited those still need fixing in a different way.
>>
>> Actually, we usually have a check to see if the loop found anything,
>> but in that case it should something like
>>
>> if (list_entry_is_head(entry, head, member)) {
>> return with error;
>> }
>> do_somethin_with(entry);
>>
>> Suffice? The list_entry_is_head() macro is designed to cope with the
>> bogus entry on head problem.
>
> That will work and is also what people already do.
>
> The key problem is that we let people do the same thing over and over again with slightly different implementations.
>
> Out in the wild I've seen at least using a separate variable, using a bool to indicate that something was found and just assuming that the list has an entry.
>
> The last case is bogus and basically what can break badly.
>
> If we would have an unified macro which search for an entry combined with automated reporting on patches to use that macro I think the potential to introduce such issues will already go down massively without auditing tons of existing code.
Having a unified way to do the same thing would indeed be great.
>
> Regards,
> Christian.
>
>>
>> James
>>
>>
>
- Jakob
Powered by blists - more mailing lists