linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] bloody mess with __attribute_

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]

Message-ID: <20070705170918.GO21478@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Thu, 5 Jul 2007 18:09:18 +0100
From:	Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] bloody mess with __attribute__() syntax

On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 09:41:55AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> IOW, as far as I can tell, there's really no reason to add a 
> "__qualifier__" handler, because it's not going to help us. Anything we 
> can do with __qualifier__, we can already do with our __attribute__ 
> parsing: what you suggest would involve having a new place for parsing 
> __attributes__, and making the *current* qualifier-like attribute parsing 
> trigger on "__qualifier__" instead.
> 
> So what I'd suggest is to just have *both* cases trigger on __attribute__, 
> but in the qualifier case we'd use NS_QUALIFIER to look up the attribute 
> function, and in the non-qualifier case we'd use NS_ATTRIBUTE (right now 
> we always use NS_KEYWORD, and that's probably bogus: we should put the 
> attribute names in another namespace _anyway_).

But that's the problem - we have places where *both* qualifiers and
attributes are allowed and they apply to different parts of declaration.

Note that we mishandle __attribute__((mode())) right now in a way that
makes no sense at all.  E.g. if it happens in the end of declaration,
we still apply it to the root type.  gcc applies it to the entire
declaration in that case, and that certainly makes much more sense.

So I'm afraid that we need to change __attribute__ parsing anyway...
-
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/