linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] trimming includes from linux/security.h

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: <20111130074745.GV2203@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Wed, 30 Nov 2011 07:47:45 +0000
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc:	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] trimming includes from linux/security.h

On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 04:09:25PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Al Viro wrote:
> > 	linux/security.h pulls a lot of garbage; most of it can be avoided
> > by several more struct ....; added in there,
> 
> Does it make sense to create a header file that contains only "struct ....;"
> lines? A lot of "struct ....;" lines are used for avoiding compiler warning.
> This results in LXR (linux cross reference) showing like
> 
> Defined as a struct type in:
> 
>     * security/selinux/include/avc.h, line 35

Er...  Then LXR sucks.  It's trivial to distinguish those from actual
definition; talks to LXR folks and let them fix their code...

struct <tag> ;

vs

struct <tag> {

is not that hard to handle, even if you bother with __attribute__ in weird
places like that.  They need to distinguish those from
	struct <tag> <ident>
etc., after all, so they do some amount of lookahead...
--
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/