[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 16:30:55 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>
cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: refactoring timers to avoid init_timer*()
On Wed, 16 Aug 2017, Kees Cook wrote:
> In the process I noticed that we already have
> scripts/coccinelle/api/setup_timer.cocci to detect existing cases of:
>
> init_timer(t);
> t->function = func;
> t->data = data;
>
> And replace it with: setup_timer(t, func, data);
>
> Another pattern was:
>
> t->expires = when;
> add_timer(t);
>
> Which can be replaced with mod_timer(t, when);
>
> So, I've created scripts/coccinelle/api/mod_timer.cocci for the
> latter, and done a few passes with manual review. The current result
> doesn't fully eliminate init_timer() yet, but it gets much closer. I
> just wanted to be sure that this whole clean-up would actually be
> welcome before I try to nail down the last many cases.
I think it's worth the trouble, but rather than having a gazillion of
commits with the same changelog, we should do that based on a cocci script
right before the next rc1 in one go and be done with it.
That will cover most of the init_timer() cases and we can fixup the
remaining few oddballs manually after that.
I just noticed that we have the same pattern with hrtimer_init(). I had a
stab on adding hrtimer_setup() and friends which takes a function argument
and converted the bulk with coccinelle.
82 files changed, 186 insertions(+), 210 deletions(-)
We can do that in the same sweep as the init_timer() one and then you can
do the canary magic on hrtimers as well.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
