Re: [PATCH] linux/kernel.h: add container_from()

[Kees Cook]

On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 11:48:19AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 11:40 AM Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 11:32 AM James Bottomley
> > <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > The tasklet rework people don't want to use container_of, which was our
> > > first suggestion, because it produces lines which are "too long".
> >
> > WTF?
> 
> Side note: I'm entirely serious. If somebody has problems with "too
> long lines", they are doing things wrong. Just ignore them.
> 
> Changing standard kernel interfaces is the wrong solution. What's
> next? Using 2-character indentation like some broken projects do just
> to make lines shorter and encourage people to do deep nesting?
> 
> No. The solution is to not write crap code with overly complex expressions.
> 
> "container_of()" has been a _very_ successful model, and the only
> reason to ever wrap it is if you already *know* the type, and you wrap
> it with an inline function that actually checks it.

This works for the case where it's a known 1-to-1 conversion, as you
showed. It doesn't work well for the 1-to-many (like timer_struct before,
and tasklet now), where each user of the infrastructure contains the
callback handle struct in their specific containing struct, which is
common for these kinds of callbacks.

> which now results in a type-checked *true* simplification of container-of.

More important than the aesthetics is the type checking, for sure.

The common raw pattern for callbacks is:

void callback(struct callback_handle *inner)
{
	struct outer *instance;
	...
	instance = container_of(inner, struct outer, member_name_of_inner);

There's so much redundancy here. And while mismatches between "instance"
and the "struct outer" type argument will be caught by the compiler,
it's weird to repeat it. Some places will make this less weird by doing:

	instance = container_of(inner, typeof(*instance), member_name_of_inner);

and when doing the timer_struct replacement, people didn't like the line
wraps making their drivers "ugly", and the compromise was to implement
from_timer()[1]:

  Since the regular pattern of using container_of() during local variable
  declaration repeats the need for the variable type declaration
  to be included, this adds a helper modeled after other from_*()
  helpers that wrap container_of(), named from_timer(). This helper uses
  typeof(*variable), removing the type redundancy and minimizing the need
  for line wraps in forthcoming conversions from "unsigned data long" to
  "struct timer_list *" in the timer callbacks:

  -void callback(unsigned long data)
  +void callback(struct timer_list *t)
  {
  -   struct some_data_structure *local = (struct some_data_structure *)data;
  +   struct some_data_structure *local = from_timer(local, t, timer);

I still didn't like this because "local" got repeated. I still think
some kind of DECLARE*() would be best. Like:

#define DECLARE_CONTAINER(outer_type, outer, member_name_of_inner, inner) \
	outer_type outer_name = container_of(inner, typeof(*outer),       \
                                             member_name_of_inner)

Then the above old timer_struct example becomes:

  -void callback(unsigned long data)
  +void callback(struct timer_list *t)
  {
  -   struct some_data_structure *local = (struct some_data_structure *)data;
  +   DECLARE_CONTAINER(struct some_data_structure *, local, timer, t);

> Seriously. It sounds to me like the tasklet rework people are people
> we want to avoid. They're doing completely the wrong thing.

So, when it's only directed at me, I just delete the personal attacks
from the quoted sections in my replies and ignore it. When it splashes
on other people, though, I think I have a duty to object to the
behavior:

This is a particularly unfriendly way to mentor new contributors and to
treat existing contributors (and reinforces a false "we"/"them" split,
when everyone just wants to see the kernel be better). And to paint
what is a 300 patch effort that cleans up a poor API that no one else
has been willing to do as "doing completely the wrong thing" when the
complaint is mainly bikeshedding over a mostly mechanical step seems
like quite an overreaction.

But, yes, let's get the right API here. I think container_of() is a mess
for these 1-to-many cases. What do you suggest here? I'll change all of
from_timer() to use it too.

-Kees

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20170928133817.GA113410@beast/

-- 
Kees Cook