linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kmemcheck: make bitfield annotations be valid C

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]

Date:	Sun, 7 Jun 2009 13:56:42 +0100
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kmemcheck: make bitfield annotations be valid C

On Sun, Jun 07, 2009 at 11:20:54AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > According to Al Viro, the syntax we were using (putting #ifdef inside
> > > > macro arguments) was not valid C. He also suggested using begin/end
> > > > markers instead, which is what we do now.
> > > >
> > > > Reported-by: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
> > > 
> > > Acked-by: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
> > > 
> > > Al, are you okay with this?
> > 
> > Looks sane
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> This removes the blocker bug from kmemcheck and we can try to push 
> it in the .31 merge window. Does the level and amount of bit-field 
> annotations look unduly troublesome to you? If we merge kmemcheck 
> then we'll have these type annotations forever.

What had been posted in this thread didn't look over the top for me, but
it's really a question for maintainers of the affected code...
--
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/