linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 05/44 take 2] [UBI] internal common header

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:22:59 -0500
From:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
To:	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Cc:	Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@...radead.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Frank Haverkamp <haver@...t.ibm.com>,
	Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/44 take 2] [UBI] internal common header

On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 03:15:55PM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > It would be much better to use __be32 and __be64, so you get better
> > type checking, and you will catch bugs caused by forgetting to use
> > be32_to_cpu, et. al. 
> 
> The technique Artem uses is derived from what I do in JFFS2. It predates
> the use of sparse to catch such errors, and works in gcc for _everyone_
> without having to do anything special (like run sparse).

But __be32 will catch the same errors these days because the be/le
types use __bitwise now, right?  So use of the __be32/__be64 types should
be preferred since it also will work with sparse, I would think.

Regards,

						- Ted

-
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/