netdev - Re: [PATCH v1 01/15] net: devmem: pull struct definitions out of ifdef

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: <c32d011e-f9be-4e37-b765-266057812ee0@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2024 23:38:08 +0100
From: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
To: Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>
Cc: David Wei <dw@...idwei.uk>, io-uring@...r.kernel.org,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
 "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>, David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 01/15] net: devmem: pull struct definitions out of
 ifdef

On 10/10/24 19:57, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 10/10/24 19:01, Mina Almasry wrote:
...
>>
>> To be honest the tradeoff wins in the other direction for me. The
>> extra boiler plate is not that bad, and we can be sure that any code
> 
> We can count how often people break builds because a change
> was compiled just with one configuration in mind. Unfortunately,
> I did it myself a fair share of times, and there is enough of
> build robot reports like that. It's not just about boiler plate
> but rather overall maintainability.
> 
>> that touches net_devmem_dmabuf_binding will get a valid internals
>> since it won't compile if the feature is disabled. This could be
>> critical and could be preventing bugs.
> 
> I don't see the concern, if devmem is compiled out there wouldn't
> be a devmem provider to even create it, and you don't need to
> worry. If you think someone would create a binding without a devmem,
> then I don't believe it'd be enough to hide a struct definition
> to prevent that in the first place.
> 
> I think the maintainers can tell whichever way they think is
> better, I can drop the patch, even though I think it's much
> better with it.
Having a second thought, I'll drop the patch as asked. The
change is not essential to the series, I shouldn't care about
devmem here.

-- 
Pavel Begunkov