Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 3 Oct 2022 12:39:30 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To:     Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com>
Cc:     Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@fi.rohmeurope.com>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>,
        Michael Hennerich <Michael.Hennerich@analog.com>,
        Cosmin Tanislav <cosmin.tanislav@analog.com>,
        Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>,
        Eugen Hristev <eugen.hristev@microchip.com>,
        Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@microchip.com>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>,
        Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@microchip.com>,
        Benson Leung <bleung@chromium.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <groeck@chromium.org>,
        Alexandru Ardelean <alexandru.ardelean@analog.com>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
        Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>,
        Miaoqian Lin <linmq006@gmail.com>,
        Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= 
        <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>,
        Paul Cercueil <paul@crapouillou.net>,
        Mihail Chindris <mihail.chindris@analog.com>,
        Gwendal Grignou <gwendal@chromium.org>,
        linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        chrome-platform@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [RFT PATCH v3 10/10] iio: Don't silently expect attribute types
Message-ID: <Yzqt0o0yWsfCGQ6I@smile.fi.intel.com>
References: <cover.1664782676.git.mazziesaccount@gmail.com>
 <63f54787a684eb1232f1c5d275a09c786987fe4a.1664782676.git.mazziesaccount@gmail.com>
 <YzqgqERDTLVkJH67@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <b36ee317-abfe-9f55-70b5-bbf3138f50c0@gmail.com>
 <7ae09809-4f3c-9872-5a87-0a05e73d39b4@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <7ae09809-4f3c-9872-5a87-0a05e73d39b4@gmail.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Oct 03, 2022 at 12:02:56PM +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> On 10/3/22 11:58, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> > On 10/3/22 11:43, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 03, 2022 at 11:13:53AM +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote:

...

> > > > +??????????? attr[ARRAY_SIZE(iio_buffer_attrs) + i] =
> > > > +??????????????? (struct attribute *)&id_attr->dev_attr.attr;
> > > 
> > > ...and explicit casting here. Isn't attr is already of a struct
> > > attribute?
> > 
> > I am glad you asked :)
> > This is one of the "things" I was not really happy about. Here we hide
> > the fact that our array is full of pointers to _const_ data. If we don't
> > cast the compiler points this out. Old code did the same thing but it
> > did this by just doing a memcpy for the pointers - which I personally
> > consider even worse as it gets really easy to miss this. The cast at
> > least hints there is something slightly "fishy" going on.
> > 
> > My "gut feeling" about the correct fix is we should check if some
> > attributes in the array (stored to the struct here) actually need to be
> > modified later (which I doubt). If I was keen on betting I'd bet we
> > could switch the struct definition to also contain pointers to const
> > attributes. I am afraid this would mean quite a few more changes to the
> > function signatures (changing struct attribute * to const struct
> > attribute *) here and there - and possibly also require some changes to
> > drivers. Thus I didn't even look at that option in the scope of this
> > fix. It should probably be a separate refactoring series. But yes - this
> > cast should catch attention as it did.
> > 
> 
> Actually, now that you pointed it out - do you think this would warrant a
> FIXME comment?

Makes sense to me, but I'm not a maintainer of IIO :-)

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko