linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH V2] include: linux: Regularise the use of FIELD

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:   Sat, 29 Jun 2019 17:25:10 +0300
From:   Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
To:     Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Shyam Saini <shyam.saini@...rulasolutions.com>,
        kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        keescook@...omium.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, intel-gvt-dev@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
        devel@...ts.orangefs.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, mayhs11saini@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] include: linux: Regularise the use of FIELD_SIZEOF
 macro

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 03:00:10PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Jun 11, 2019, at 2:48 PM, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 01:08:36 +0530 Shyam Saini <shyam.saini@...rulasolutions.com> wrote:

> I did a check, and FIELD_SIZEOF() is used about 350x, while sizeof_field()
> is about 30x, and SIZEOF_FIELD() is only about 5x.
> 
> That said, I'm much more in favour of "sizeof_field()" or "sizeof_member()"
> than FIELD_SIZEOF().  Not only does that better match "offsetof()", with
> which it is closely related, but is also closer to the original "sizeof()".
> 
> Since this is a rather trivial change, it can be split into a number of
> patches to get approval/landing via subsystem maintainers, and there is no
> huge urgency to remove the original macros until the users are gone.  It
> would make sense to remove SIZEOF_FIELD() and sizeof_field() quickly so
> they don't gain more users, and the remaining FIELD_SIZEOF() users can be
> whittled away as the patches come through the maintainer trees.

The signature should be

	sizeof_member(T, m)

it is proper English,
it is lowercase, so is easier to type,
it uses standard term (member, not field),
it blends in with standard "sizeof" operator,