linux-kernel - Re: [linux-next][PATCH] revert headers

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: <20090206173249.GC11299@uranus.ravnborg.org>
Date:	Fri, 6 Feb 2009 18:32:49 +0100
From:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
To:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@...nel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinderlinux@...il.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	hskinnemoen@...el.com, cooloney@...nel.org, tony.luck@...el.com,
	ralf@...ux-mips.org, dhowells@...hat.com, matthew@....cx,
	chris@...kel.net, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-next <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-ia64 <linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-next][PATCH] revert headers_check fix: ia64, fpu.h

On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 03:55:12PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 09:18:48PM +0530, Jaswinder Singh Rajput wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 15:33 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 08:59:01PM +0530, Jaswinder Singh Rajput wrote:
> > > > Jaswinder Singh Rajput (2):
> > > >       Neither asm/types.h nor linux/types.h is required for arch/ia64/include/asm/fpu.h
> > > >       make linux/types.h as assembly safe
> > > 
> > > I continue to disagree with the need for the second patch.
> > 
> > Like Ingo suggested:
> > 
> > On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 15:58 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >  Well types.h easily gets included in other files though, which might be 
> > > partially suited for assembly - and have !__ASSEMBLY__ portions that rely on 
> > > a types.h include.
> > > 
> > > So making this file an invariant in .S files does not sound like a bad idea 
> > > to me. Is there any downside?
> > > 
> > 
> > We cannot see any downside of this patch.
> > 
> > But we can see upside of this patch is:
> > 1. No need to protect linux/types.h with #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__ in many
> > files
> > 2. So we trying to replace multiple #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__ with one.
> 
> The point is:
> 
> 1. If the parent include needs to include linux/types.h to get at C
>    types _and_ the include file needs to also be included by assembly
>    code, it itself needs to have #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__ to protect those
>    uses from the assembly code.
> 
>    In that case, the linux/types.h include should be contained within
>    the #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__ .. #endif block along with all C only
>    parts of the header file.
> 
> 2. if it doesn't need C types from linux/types.h, then that header has
>    no business including linux/types.h, and the include should be
>    eliminated to save the already dirbolically slow compiler from
>    having to read and parse that file, and more importantly allowing
>    it to eliminate linux/types.h from the build dependencies.
> 
> Yes, you can wrap linux/types.h with that ifndef, and yes it will fix
> any problems, but I view it as a hack rather than fixing the real problem
> which is lazyness by code writers to get their include dependencies right.

You guys are getting this wrong.
The patch from Jaswinder needs to be fixed so we unconditionally
include <asm/types.h> from linux/types.h.
And then ll users can safely include linux/types.h and when we one
day realize we can move some stuff used in .S files from
asm/types.h to linux/types.h then we are all safe and no breakage.

the rule of thum is to include the linux/* variant if the same
file exist in both linus/ and asm/ and types.h is in no way different
here

And trying to make it different just becasue it is used in userspace
intensively is just stupid and will be a cause of misunderstandings.

	Sam
--
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/