linux-kernel - Re: "signed" versus "__signed__" versus "__signed" in arch-specific "types.h" files

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20061029170226.GA29903@dreamland.darkstar.lan>
Date:	Sun, 29 Oct 2006 18:02:26 +0100
From:	Luca Tettamanti <kronos.it@...il.com>
To:	"Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: "signed" versus "__signed__" versus "__signed" in arch-specific  "types.h" files

Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@...dspring.com> ha scritto:
>  so the keyword alias "__signed__" is used early on in nearly every
> types.h file but, if __KERNEL__ is defined, the file falls back to
> just using "signed".  (the use of "unsigned" is, of course, consistent
> throughout.)

When __KERNEL__ is not defined then that part of the header may be
exposed to userspace[1]. Older compilers (or newer versions of gcc with
-traditional used to compile old programs) don't recognize the keyword
'signed', hence the alternate keyword is used.
Extreme backward compatibility I'd say ;) I doubt that today is
possibile to compile anything with -traditional on a distro recent
enough to use kernel 2.6.

Luca
[1] You'd better use the cleaned up version of the headers though.
-- 
"It is more complicated than you think"
                -- The Eighth Networking Truth from RFC 1925
-
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/