netdev - Re: [PATCH 08/39] experimental: convert fs/overlayfs/file.c to CLASS(...)

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: <20240730211225.GH5334@ZenIV>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2024 22:12:25 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>
Cc: viro@...nel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, amir73il@...il.com,
	bpf@...r.kernel.org, brauner@...nel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/39] experimental: convert fs/overlayfs/file.c to
 CLASS(...)

On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 03:10:25PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 01:15:54AM -0400, viro@...nel.org wrote:
> > From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
> > 
> > There are four places where we end up adding an extra scope
> > covering just the range from constructor to destructor;
> > not sure if that's the best way to handle that.
> > 
> > The functions in question are ovl_write_iter(), ovl_splice_write(),
> > ovl_fadvise() and ovl_copyfile().
> > 
> > This is very likely *NOT* the final form of that thing - it
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > needs to be discussed.

> Is this what we want to do from a code cleanliness standpoint?  This feels
> pretty ugly to me, I feal like it would be better to have something like
> 
> scoped_class(fd_real, real) {
> 	// code
> }
> 
> rather than the {} at the same indent level as the underlying block.
> 
> I don't feel super strongly about this, but I do feel like we need to either
> explicitly say "this is the way/an acceptable way to do this" from a code
> formatting standpoint, or we need to come up with a cleaner way of representing
> the scoped area.

That's a bit painful in these cases - sure, we can do something like
	scoped_class(fd_real, real)(file) {
		if (fd_empty(fd_real)) {
			ret = fd_error(real);
			break;
		}
		old_cred = ovl_override_creds(file_inode(file)->i_sb);
		ret = vfs_fallocate(fd_file(real), mode, offset, len);
		revert_creds(old_cred);

		/* Update size */
		ovl_file_modified(file);  
	}
but that use of break would need to be documented.  And IMO anything like
        scoped_cond_guard (mutex_intr, return -ERESTARTNOINTR,
			   &task->signal->cred_guard_mutex) {
is just distasteful ;-/  Control flow should _not_ be hidden that way;
it's hard on casual reader.

The variant I'd put in there is obviously not suitable for merge - we need
something else, the question is what that something should be...