linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] wireless.h: Add STD_IW

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:	Thu, 18 Mar 2010 13:23:25 -0400
From:	Pavel Roskin <proski@....org>
To:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Richard Kennedy <richard@....demon.co.uk>,
	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
	"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
	linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] wireless.h: Add STD_IW_HANDLER macro

On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 23:21 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> Copied from orinoco, initialize a iw_handler array entry
> 
> Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/wireless.h |    2 ++
>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/wireless.h b/include/linux/wireless.h
> index 5b4c6c7..ad9f8d5 100644
> --- a/include/linux/wireless.h
> +++ b/include/linux/wireless.h
> @@ -346,6 +346,8 @@
>  #define SIOCIWFIRST	0x8B00
>  #define SIOCIWLAST	SIOCIWLASTPRIV		/* 0x8BFF */
>  #define IW_IOCTL_IDX(cmd)	((cmd) - SIOCIWFIRST)
> +#define STD_IW_HANDLER(id, func) \
> +	[IW_IOCTL_IDX(id)] = (iw_handler) func
>  
>  /* Odd : get (world access), even : set (root access) */
>  #define IW_IS_SET(cmd)	(!((cmd) & 0x1))

Three objections.

1) STD_IW_HANDLER is a poor name for a header.  The name should start
with IW, just like those above and below it.

2) Adding STD_IW_HANDLER to wireless.h and removing it from Orinoco in
separate commits might create several commits in which Orinoco may not
compile.  I think gcc would not object if you copy the definition
exactly, but I would not rely on it.  Making life miserable for
bisectors is bad - they are useful creatures.  Of course, the argument
is moot if you use a different name for the new macro.

3) Abstracting a cast is bad unless it's the whole purpose of the macro.
While Orinoco needs the cast, other drivers may not need it.  Using a
cast could prevent gcc from finding a legitimate problem.

-- 
Regards,
Pavel Roskin
--
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/