netdev - Re: [PATCH] mwifiex: Use put_unaligned

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:   Fri, 06 Oct 2017 16:31:58 +0300
From:   Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
To:     Himanshu Jha <himanshujha199640@...il.com>
Cc:     Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>, amitkarwar@...il.com,
        nishants@...vell.com, gbhat@...vell.com, huxm@...vell.com,
        linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mwifiex: Use put_unaligned_le32

Himanshu Jha <himanshujha199640@...il.com> writes:

> On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 11:02:50AM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 08:52:33PM +0530, Himanshu Jha wrote:
>> > There are various instances where a function used in file say for eg
>> > int func_align (void* a)
>> > is used and it is defined in align.h
>> > But many files don't *directly* include align.h and rather include
>> > any other header which includes align.h
>> 
>> I believe the general rule is that you should included headers for all
>> symbols you use, and not rely on implicit includes.
>> 
>> The modification to the general rule is that not all headers are
>> intended to be included directly, and in such cases there's likely a
>> parent header that is the more appropriate target.
>> 
>> In this case, the key is CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS. It
>> seems that asm-generic/unaligned.h is set up to include different
>> headers, based on the expected architecture behavior.
>>
> Yes, asm-generic/unaligned.h looks more appopriate and is most generic
> implementation of unaligned accesses and  arc specific.
>
> Let's see what Kalle Valo recommends! And then I will send v2 of the
> patch.

Not sure what you are asking from me. But if you are asking should it
be:

#include <asm/unaligned.h>

or:

#include <asm-generic/unaligned.h>

I think it should be the former.

-- 
Kalle Valo