linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv3 1/3] USB: gadget: mass/file storage: set serial number

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: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1007201059150.1631-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date:	Tue, 20 Jul 2010 11:02:25 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To:	Michał Nazarewicz <m.nazarewicz@...sung.com>
cc:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>,
	Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
	Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
	Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Dries Van Puymbroeck <Dries.VanPuymbroeck@...imo.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 1/3] USB: gadget: mass/file storage: set serial number

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, [utf-8] MichaÅ Nazarewicz wrote:

> I wanted to keep fsg_string_serial_fill() as a macro so that it can
> use ARRAY_SIZE() on the first argument to check the size.  If there
> was a single function it would have to explicitly take the length of
> the destination array as an argument -- that's what the *_n() function
> is for.
> 
> The rationale is that not having to use ARRAY_SIZE() is, well,
> simpler. ;)

My advice is don't bother.  Let callers give explicitly the size of 
their buffer.  How many other routines in the kernel do an implicit 
ARRAY_SIZE on behalf of their callers?  What if the buffer is passed as 
a pointer instead of as an array?

> Basically, what you are proposing is to remove the
> fsg_string_serial_fill() macro and leave only the *_n() changed to
> an inline function and force all callers use sizeof/ARRAY_SIZE().

Or determine the size in some other way.  Yes.  (And then remove the 
"_n" from the name since it will be unnecessary.)

> Am I getting that right?  Personally, I'd leave things like they are
> changing the *_n() to a function.  What do you think?

See above.

Alan Stern

--
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/