On Mon, 9 Nov 2015, Kees Cook wrote: > On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, 9 Nov 2015, Emese Revfy wrote: > > > >> On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 14:50:47 +0000 (GMT) > >> Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > > Actually, it looks like Emese Revfy is going to merge the GCC plugin > >> > > constify stuff sooner rather than later so maybe adding all these consts > >> > > isn't going to be needed. > >> > > >> > Is there any advantage of const over the plugin? The consts are easy to > >> > add. > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> I think it's a very good advantage that the plugin constifies automatically > >> without regular maintenance (e.g., generate patches with coccinelle, > >> send patches to the maintainers every new kernel version). ;) > >> But if it doesn't convince you, I did constification by hand (with a coccinelle > >> script) some years ago. > >> There are too many types that can be const and it took too long to prepare and > >> get the maintainers to accept the patches. > >> And it never ends as there are always new types that can be const. > > > > What happens if some structures cannot be made const because there is a > > reassignment somewhere? Is there any feedback about the problem? > > AIUI, for now, we can't make those const (though I would be happy to > be corrected). My hope would be to allow reassignment using something > like PaX's kernel_open/kernel_close inlines to allow for temporary > modification of read-only things (as part of the KERNEXEC feature). What I was more wondering was whether there is any feedback about the situation? julia -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
