linux-kernel - Re: [Patch] Always include <linux/types.h>

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:48:22 +0200
From:	Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@...asas.com>
To:	Jörn Engel <joern@...fs.org>
CC:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch] Always include <linux/types.h>

Jörn Engel wrote:
> Hardly any file in the kernel can be compiled without including
> <linux/types.h>, directly or indirectly.  And I'd wager a beer that
> noone can find a non-trivial example.  I couldn't.
> 
> So instead of sprinkling even more #include <linux/types.h> everywhere -
> 140 headers in include/linux/ would need that to compile standalone -
> let us just pass it automatically.
> 
> The existing 4000 odd includes for types.h, plus some 300 each for
> compiler.h and stddef.h, which get pulled through types.h, can get
> removed at leasure.
> 
> diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
> index 6192922..8a3fb66 100644
> --- a/Makefile
> +++ b/Makefile
> @@ -326,7 +326,8 @@ AFLAGS_KERNEL	=
>  # Needed to be compatible with the O= option
>  LINUXINCLUDE    := -Iinclude \
>                     $(if $(KBUILD_SRC),-Iinclude2 -I$(srctree)/include) \
> -		   -include include/linux/autoconf.h
> +		   -include include/linux/autoconf.h \
> +		   -include include/linux/types.h
>  
>  KBUILD_CPPFLAGS := -D__KERNEL__ $(LINUXINCLUDE)
>  
> --

I think that if:
[A]
<header1.h>
/* no includes pure level A header */
</header1.h>

[B]
<header2.h>
#include "header1.h"
/* Level B header depends on level A */
</header2.h>

[C]
<header3.h>
#include "header2.h"
use some types of header1.h
/* Level C header depends on level B */
</header3.h>

[D]
<source.c>
#include "header3.h"
use types from A, B, C
</source.c>

Then that's fine any other file that includes any one of A, B, or C will have
no problem compiling and headers include order does not matter. Actually it is
nice, since the reader of header3.h knows that it is derived/dependent work of
header2.h.

Now what happens in the future when at B #include "header1.h" is removed.
At C header3.h stops compiling. So here I think it is the programmer's decision.
If he thinks that usage of A types used at C are do to B and if B's implementation
changes to use another set of types, then also C should change with it. Then leave
it as above. If the programmer decides that there is independent use of A types
in C unrelated to B, then he should also include A directly. If in doubt just don't
include it.

In any case I'm still not breaking the self-contained / order-independent headers
rule.

So please don't do that, Most of these places you found are the A-B-C case

Just my $0.017
Boaz

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/