On 6 September 2017 at 19:03,  <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Hiltjo Posthuma [[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2017 5:32 PM
> To: hackers mail list
> Subject: Re: [hackers] [dwm][PATCH] move config data to read-only sections
>
> On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 05:07:06PM +0200, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
>> Hi Joachim,
>>
>> On 6 September 2017 at 17:02,  <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > commit 6a5056d4c919bb5ae0222b2fde0ed787d50092cf
>> > Author: Joachim Henke <[email protected]>
>> > AuthorDate: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 16:26:42 +0200
>> >
>> > The configuration data is just used read-only. So making it immutable
>> > might improve security. Testing on x86_64 showed that the .data section
>> > shrunk considerably: by ~2500 bytes.
>> >
>> > diff --git a/config.def.h b/config.def.h
>> > index a9ac303..a43a03c 100644
>> > --- a/config.def.h
>> > +++ b/config.def.h
>> > @@ -5,14 +5,14 @@ static const unsigned int borderpx  = 1;        /* 
>> > border pixel of windows */
>> >  static const unsigned int snap      = 32;       /* snap pixel */
>> >  static const int showbar            = 1;        /* 0 means no bar */
>> >  static const int topbar             = 1;        /* 0 means bottom bar */
>> > -static const char *fonts[]          = { "monospace:size=10" };
>> > +static const char *const fonts[]    = { "monospace:size=10" };
>> >  static const char dmenufont[]       = "monospace:size=10";
>> >  static const char col_gray1[]       = "#222222";
>> >  static const char col_gray2[]       = "#444444";
>> >  static const char col_gray3[]       = "#bbbbbb";
>> >  static const char col_gray4[]       = "#eeeeee";
>> >  static const char col_cyan[]        = "#005577";
>> > -static const char *colors[][3]      = {
>> > +static const char *const colors[][3] = {
>> >         /*               fg         bg         border   */
>> >         [SchemeNorm] = { col_gray3, col_gray1, col_gray2 },
>> >         [SchemeSel]  = { col_gray4, col_cyan,  col_cyan  },
>> > @@ -56,10 +56,10 @@ static const Layout layouts[] = {
>> >
>> >  /* commands */
>> >  static char dmenumon[2] = "0"; /* component of dmenucmd, manipulated in 
>> > spawn() */
>> > -static const char *dmenucmd[] = { "dmenu_run", "-m", dmenumon, "-fn", 
>> > dmenufont, "-nb", col_gray1, "-nf", col_gray3, "-sb", col_cyan, "-sf", 
>> > col_gray4, NULL };
>> > -static const char *termcmd[]  = { "st", NULL };
>> > +static const char *const dmenucmd[] = { "dmenu_run", "-m", dmenumon, 
>> > "-fn", dmenufont, "-nb", col_gray1, "-nf", col_gray3, "-sb", col_cyan, 
>> > "-sf", col_gray4, NULL };
>> > +static const char *const termcmd[]  = { "st", NULL };
>> >
>> > -static Key keys[] = {
>> > +static const Key keys[] = {
>> >         /* modifier                     key        function        
>> > argument */
>> >         { MODKEY,                       XK_p,      spawn,          {.v = 
>> > dmenucmd } },
>> >         { MODKEY|ShiftMask,             XK_Return, spawn,          {.v = 
>> > termcmd } },
>> > @@ -98,7 +98,7 @@ static Key keys[] = {
>> >
>> >  /* button definitions */
>> >  /* click can be ClkLtSymbol, ClkStatusText, ClkWinTitle, ClkClientWin, or 
>> > ClkRootWin */
>> > -static Button buttons[] = {
>> > +static const Button buttons[] = {
>> >         /* click                event mask      button          function   
>> >      argument */
>> >         { ClkLtSymbol,          0,              Button1,        setlayout, 
>> >      {0} },
>> >         { ClkLtSymbol,          0,              Button3,        setlayout, 
>> >      {.v = &layouts[2]} },
>> > diff --git a/drw.c b/drw.c
>> > index 319eb6b..902976f 100644
>> > --- a/drw.c
>> > +++ b/drw.c
>> > @@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ xfont_free(Fnt *font)
>> >  }
>> >
>> >  Fnt*
>> > -drw_fontset_create(Drw* drw, const char *fonts[], size_t fontcount)
>> > +drw_fontset_create(Drw* drw, const char *const fonts[], size_t fontcount)
>> >  {
>> >         Fnt *cur, *ret = NULL;
>> >         size_t i;
>> > @@ -194,7 +194,7 @@ drw_clr_create(Drw *drw, XftColor *dest, const char 
>> > *clrname)
>> >  /* Wrapper to create color schemes. The caller has to call free(3) on the
>> >   * returned color scheme when done using it. */
>> >  Scm
>> > -drw_scm_create(Drw *drw, const char *clrnames[], size_t clrcount)
>> > +drw_scm_create(Drw *drw, const char *const clrnames[], size_t clrcount)
>> >  {
>> >         size_t i;
>> >         Scm ret;
>> > diff --git a/drw.h b/drw.h
>> > index ff4355b..2de6a6f 100644
>> > --- a/drw.h
>> > +++ b/drw.h
>> > @@ -32,14 +32,14 @@ void drw_resize(Drw *drw, unsigned int w, unsigned int 
>> > h);
>> >  void drw_free(Drw *drw);
>> >
>> >  /* Fnt abstraction */
>> > -Fnt *drw_fontset_create(Drw* drw, const char *fonts[], size_t fontcount);
>> > +Fnt *drw_fontset_create(Drw* drw, const char *const fonts[], size_t 
>> > fontcount);
>> >  void drw_fontset_free(Fnt* set);
>> >  unsigned int drw_fontset_getwidth(Drw *drw, const char *text);
>> >  void drw_font_getexts(Fnt *font, const char *text, unsigned int len, 
>> > unsigned int *w, unsigned int *h);
>> >
>> >  /* Colorscheme abstraction */
>> >  void drw_clr_create(Drw *drw, XftColor *dest, const char *clrname);
>> > -Scm drw_scm_create(Drw *drw, const char *clrnames[], size_t clrcount);
>> > +Scm drw_scm_create(Drw *drw, const char *const clrnames[], size_t 
>> > clrcount);
>> >
>> >  /* Cursor abstraction */
>> >  Cur *drw_cur_create(Drw *drw, int shape);
>>
>> I like your patch, at first glance it makes config.h more consistent
>> with the other const declarations, however I need to browse through
>> the patches if there were any places, where the non-const declaration
>> was on purpose for some reason prior to accepting this upstream.
>
> Please no const char *const. I'm ok with the other const changes though.

Nice spot! I only glanced at it and didn't notice the pointer
qualifiers. This syntax really sucks from a readability point of view.

> Well, C might not have the most beautiful syntax in this regard, but I see no 
> other way to make a pointer itself read-only (and especially the ...cmd[] 
> pointer arrays really should be). Would using a typedef for that be more 
> comfortable to you?

Are you suggesting to typedef const char *const coChar; or something
similar and then using coChar in those places? I would still prefer
the old way for readability reasons. There is no real impact either
imho.

BR,
Anselm

Reply via email to