linux-kernel - Re: best practices: which "uaccess.h" should one include?

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]

Date:	Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:09:02 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	"Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...shcourse.ca>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: best practices:  which "uaccess.h" should one include?

On Tuesday 22 September 2009, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>   philosophically, which is the "correct" uaccess.h header file to
> include in kernel code -- <linux/uaccess.h> or <asm/uaccess.h>?  the
> first explicitly includes the second so that's a safe choice but,
> generally, there's been a tendency to shift toward including the
> "linux" header files.  opinion?  there's quite a mixture under the
> drivers/ directory.

The preferred one is linux/uaccess.h, the same is true for many
headers that traditionally only existed in asm/.

There are some headers with explicit #warning or #error messages
when they are not included from linux/foo.h, e.g. spinlock_types.h,
bitops.h or rwsem.h.

Other headers include each other both ways, e.g. futex.h, which means
that you can use either one, though it might be good to move to
a common location if that doesn't cause too much churn.

	Arnd <><
--
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/