On Mon, Oct 03, 2022 at 11:02:19AM +0000, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 04:43:19PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 02:30:53PM +0000, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> > > Hi Greg,
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 01:05:20PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 01:57:42PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > It's not fully correct to take a const parameter pointer to a struct
> > > > > and return a non-const pointer to a member of that struct.
> > > > >
> > > > > Instead, introduce a const version of the dev_fwnode() API which takes
> > > > > and returns const pointers and use it where it's applicable.
> > > > >
> > > > > Suggested-by: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Fixes: aade55c86033 ("device property: Add const qualifier to device_get_match_data() parameter")
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Acked-by: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > drivers/base/property.c | 11 +++++++++--
> > > > > include/linux/property.h | 3 ++-
> > > > > 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/base/property.c b/drivers/base/property.c
> > > > > index 4d6278a84868..699f1b115e0a 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/base/property.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/base/property.c
> > > > > @@ -17,13 +17,20 @@
> > > > > #include <linux/property.h>
> > > > > #include <linux/phy.h>
> > > > >
> > > > > -struct fwnode_handle *dev_fwnode(const struct device *dev)
> > > > > +struct fwnode_handle *dev_fwnode(struct device *dev)
> > > > > {
> > > > > return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF) && dev->of_node ?
> > > > > of_fwnode_handle(dev->of_node) : dev->fwnode;
> > > > > }
> > > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dev_fwnode);
> > > > >
> > > > > +const struct fwnode_handle *dev_fwnode_const(const struct device *dev)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF) && dev->of_node ?
> > > > > + of_fwnode_handle(dev->of_node) : dev->fwnode;
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dev_fwnode_const);
> > > >
> > > > Ick, no, this is a mess.
> > > >
> > > > Either always return a const pointer, or don't. Ideally always return a
> > > > const pointer, so all we really need is:
> > > >
> > > > const struct fwnode_handle *dev_fwnode(const struct device *dev);
> > > >
> > > > right?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, it will take some unwinding backwards to get there, but please do
> > > > that instead of having 2 different functions where the parameter type is
> > > > part of the function name. This isn't the 1980's...
> > >
> > > The problem with this approach is that sometimes non-const fwnode_handles
> > > are needed. On OF, for instance, anything that has something to do with
> > > refcounting requires this. Software nodes as well.
> >
> > If they are writable, then yes, let's keep them writable, and not create
> > two function paths where we have to pick and choose.
> >
> > > One option which I suggested earlier was to turn dev_fwnode() into a macro
> > > and use C11 _Generic() to check whether the device is const or not.
> >
> > As much fun as that would be, I don't think it would work well.
> >
> > Although, maybe it would, have an example of how that would look?
>
> Similar to what container_of() could be, see below.
>
> We could also partially revert aade55c86033bee868a93e4bf3843c9c99e84526
> which (also) made dev_fwnode() argument const (which is the source of the
> issue).
>
> >
> > I ask as I just went through a large refactoring of the kobject layer to
> > mark many things const * and I find it a bit "sad" that functions like
> > this:
> > static inline struct device *kobj_to_dev(const struct kobject *kobj)
> > {
> > return container_of(kobj, struct device, kobj);
> > }
> > have the ability to take a read-only pointer and spit out a writable one
> > thanks to the pointer math in container_of() with no one being the
> > wiser.
>
> Yeah, container_of() is dangerous, especially in macros. It could of course
> be made safer. Something like this:
>
> <URL:https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kernel/1495195570-5249-1-git-send-email-sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/>
>
> I can respin it, back in 2017 I got no replies.
I don't like how we loose the ability to do this in an inline C function
by being forced to do it in a macro (as it makes build errors harder to
understand), but I do like the intent here.
Let me play around with this a bit on some "smaller" uses of
container_of() and see how that works...
thanks,
greg k-h
