linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] headers_check fix: linux/pps.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:	Sun, 28 Jun 2009 10:47:11 +0530
From:	Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@...nel.org>
To:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
	Rodolfo Giometti <giometti@...ux.it>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...glemail.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] headers_check fix: linux/pps.h

On Sat, 2009-06-27 at 23:53 +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 10:03:34PM +0530, Jaswinder Singh Rajput wrote:
> > 
> > fix the following 'make headers_check' warnings:
> > 
> >   usr/include/linux/pps.h:52: found __[us]{8,16,32,64} type without #include <linux/types.h>
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinderrajput@...il.com>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/pps.h |    2 ++
> >  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/pps.h b/include/linux/pps.h
> > index cfe5c72..0194ab0 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/pps.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/pps.h
> > @@ -22,6 +22,8 @@
> >  #ifndef _PPS_H_
> >  #define _PPS_H_
> >  
> > +#include <linux/types.h>
> > +
> >  #define PPS_VERSION		"5.3.6"
> >  #define PPS_MAX_SOURCES		16		/* should be enough... */
> 
> That file has other issues that should be addresses too.
> 1) It uses int rather than wide specific types
> 2) It uses structs with questionable alignmner as per David's comment
> 

This should be send in different patch.

> Keeping the warning until all issues are sorted out is preferred.
> If we 'fix' the warning then we loose the reminder that this file
> needs to be eyeballed.
> 

You mean files which do not get headers_check warning are absolutely OK.
This is totally insane.

This are different issues and need to send by different series of
patches. Please do not mix up things.

> This is not a quest to eliminate warnings - this is a quest to
> raise the quality and correctness of the exported headers.
> The warnings serves as reminders where to focus attention.
> 

ditto.

--
JSR

--
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/