linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86 byteorder.h: use __asm__/__inline_

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: <200812271421.10087.vapier@gentoo.org>
Date:	Sat, 27 Dec 2008 14:21:07 -0500
From:	Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86 byteorder.h: use __asm__/__inline__ for userspace

On Saturday 27 December 2008 14:15:01 H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 10:58:11AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >> Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> >>> I wnet with the scripted conversion for now.
> >>> If that does not fly we can come back to this proposal.
> >>>
> >>> What I like most with the auto conversion is that we avoid
> >>> adding yet another special rule about how to do stuff in exported
> >>> headers.
> >>
> >> Indeed, and being keyword conversion, it's independent of context, at
> >> least as long as one doesn't have too many run-ins with weird uses of
> >> the # and ## preprocessor operators, which are a *lot* easier to rule
> >> out globally.
> >
> > Speaking of what we want to use in exported headers.
> > What is the recommendation with respect to uint32_t and friends?
> > To my best knowledge they are banned in exported headers as they
> > are not part of the kernel namespace and I see few users too.
> > But is this something we should check for?
>
> I personally would not be upset if we auto-changed {su}{8,16,32,64},
> [u]int_{8,16,32,64}_t

{su}{8,16,32,64} doesnt matter too much to me vs {u,}int_t{8,16,32,64}_t.  as 
long as people stop using __{su}{8,16,32,64}.  using the latter though does 
mean headers will more likely be "just usable" w/out needing linux/types.h 
include.  but then people would be forced to include stdint.h or similar 
before a linux header ... and that sucks.

unless of course we start adding appropriate C library includes for 
!__KERNEL__ ... i'd love that personally

> and bool into the appropriate __{su}{8,16,32,64}
> types and _Bool.

i dont get your bool comment.  the "bool" type is already a standard type.  
there is no conversion needed.
-mike

Download attachment "signature.asc " of type "application/pgp-signature" (836 bytes)