On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Rob Jones <rob.jones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 25/09/14 17:09, Kees Cook wrote: >> >> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 1:57 AM, Rob Jones <rob.jones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 24/09/14 19:06, Kees Cook wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 4:15 AM, Rob Jones <rob.jones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Series resubmitted due to a typo in an email address. >>>>> >>>>> This patch series implements and documents a new interface function for >>>>> seq_file. >>>>> >>>>> The existing set of open functions: seq_open(), seq_open_private() and >>>>> __seq_open_private() satisfy the majority of use cases however there is >>>>> one more use case that is also very common that this new function >>>>> addresses. >>>>> >>>>> This case is where the iterator needs information that is available >>>>> only >>>>> at >>>>> the time the seq_file is opened but does not need any space allocated, >>>>> e.g. >>>>> access to the inode structure. This type of open occurs, by my best >>>>> estimate, >>>>> in well over 40 places. >>>>> >>>>> Using the new function saves at least two lines of boilerplate code per >>>>> instance as well as making the code easier to follow. The additional >>>>> code >>>>> in seq_file.c to implement the function is minimal as the first place >>>>> that >>>>> code can be removed is within seq_file.c itself. >>>>> >>>>> Once this patch is accepted, the instances of boilerplate code can be >>>>> addressed. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Would it be possible to write a coccinelle patch for the replacements? >>> >>> >>> >>> I'm afraid I don't know what that means. >> >> >> It's a very flexible tool that should be able to find all the places >> where this pattern is being used, and you can replace it with the new >> function call: >> >> http://lwn.net/Articles/315686/ > > > I suspect that the learning curve would exceed the utility but I'll have > a look at it. Unless there's a coccinelle expert available to do it, in > which case I could point them in the right direction. > > My gut reaction would be that by the time I had analysed enough cases > to come up with a viable set of SmPL scripts I would have done most of > the work required, especially if I had to learn a new syntax and tool > to do it. > > But first impressions aren't always right. No worries; I was just curious if it would be easy. Sounds like "probably not", which is fine. :) -Kees -- Kees Cook Chrome OS Security -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
