public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>,
	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
Cc: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] video: constify geode ops structures
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2015 22:09:27 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1447049367.2701.39.camel@perches.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151109054253.GQ18797@mwanda>

On Mon, 2015-11-09 at 08:42 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 10:24:49PM +0000, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > On Mon, 9 Nov 2015, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > 
> > > Cool.  So, in grsec they use a GCC plugin to make these const
> > > automatically since they only contain function pointers.  There about
> > > 100 struct types marked as __no_const.  Kees would like to adopt the
> > > grsec pluggin approach I expect.  Do you have an idea how many structs
> > > only contain function pointers or how many consts we would have to add
> > > to get the same effect without the plugin?
> > 
> > My list has 373 type names.  In the list there are counts for good
> > (already const) and bad (not const).  The sum of the bad values is 2467.
> > The list is below.
> > 
> > julia
> 
> Fantastic!  Thanks.  We could autogenerate the list of type names and
> make checkpatch.pl complain if we declared those types as non const.
> 
> I ran this command to find which functions grsec marks as __no_const.
> 
> egrep '(^ struct |^@@|__no_const;)' grsecurity-3.1-4.2.5-201511021814.patch | grep __no_const -B1 | grep -v __no_const | grep -v '^--' | cut -d @ -f 5-  | cut -b 9- | cut -d ' ' -f 1
> 
> There are 60 structs declared as __no_const.  For some structs they
> declare a no_const version and use it as needed.  Like this:
> typedef struct net_device_ops __no_const net_device_ops_no_const;
> 
> grep __no_const grsecurity-3.1-4.2.5-201511021814.patch | grep typedef | cut -d ' ' -f 3
> 
> There are 32 of those.
> 
> Then I compared to see if their structs were on your list.  For some
> reason there quite a few one their list which are not on yours.  Out
> of the first 10 about half weren't on your list.  cpu_cache_fns,
> outer_cache_fns, psci_operations, smp_operations, omap_hwmod_soc_ops,
> smp_ops_t.  These are mostly different arches?
> 
> Also bit_table has in int has well as a function pointers but it is on
> their list.  I'm not sure why.  Maybe they are marking structs const
> that I don't know about.
> 
> The other trick that they do is they define structs as __do_const if
> they want them to be const by default, which is pretty neat.  This feels
> like it should be a standard GCC feature.  In the meantime we could
> mark things as __do_const and print a sparse warning if it was declared
> as not const.
> 
> I have attached the list of __no_const structs.

This would probably be better as a coccinelle script,
but making checkpatch use an external list instead of
the hard coded list of normally const structs
(checkpatch's $const_structs variable around line 5600)
is trivial.

Right now, checkpatch generates a camelcase file.
(.checkpatch.git.<latest_commit_id>)

Maybe something similar could be done or another
script could be run occasionally to create this
"normally_const_struct_list" file.



  reply	other threads:[~2015-11-09  6:09 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-11-08 21:34 [PATCH] video: constify geode ops structures Julia Lawall
2015-11-08 22:16 ` Dan Carpenter
2015-11-08 22:24   ` Julia Lawall
2015-11-09  5:42     ` Dan Carpenter
2015-11-09  6:09       ` Joe Perches [this message]
2015-11-09  6:39       ` Julia Lawall
2015-11-09 13:30         ` [kernel-hardening] " Dan Carpenter
2015-11-09 18:12           ` Julia Lawall
2015-11-09 18:19             ` Joe Perches
2015-11-09 13:49       ` Dan Carpenter
2015-11-09 14:50         ` Julia Lawall
2015-11-09 16:39           ` Dan Carpenter
2015-11-09 17:05           ` Emese Revfy
2015-11-09 17:48             ` Julia Lawall
2015-11-09 21:24               ` Kees Cook
2015-11-09 21:55                 ` Julia Lawall
2015-11-09 23:34                   ` Kees Cook
2015-11-10  1:24                     ` PaX Team
2015-11-10 15:44       ` Julia Lawall
2015-11-09 21:20   ` Kees Cook
2015-11-10  6:38     ` Christoph Hellwig
2015-11-10 20:34       ` Kees Cook
2015-11-10 20:49         ` Joe Perches
2015-11-10 22:02           ` Dan Carpenter
2015-11-10 22:17             ` Joe Perches
2015-11-10 22:34               ` Dan Carpenter
2015-11-10 22:39                 ` Joe Perches
2015-11-24 11:28 ` Tomi Valkeinen

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1447049367.2701.39.camel@perches.com \
    --to=joe@perches.com \
    --cc=dan.carpenter@oracle.com \
    --cc=julia.lawall@lip6.fr \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com \
    --cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox