linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][RESEND] do not redefine userspace's NULL #define

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: <20120413170151.20c7230e@wrlaptop>
Date:	Fri, 13 Apr 2012 17:01:51 -0500
From:	Peter Seebach <peter.seebach@...driver.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	Lubos Lunak <l.lunak@...e.cz>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RESEND] do not redefine userspace's NULL #define

On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 12:39:20 -0700
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> And quite frankly, kernel-external definitions of NULL have
> traditionally been pure sh*t (ie plain "0" without the cast to a
> pointer), so I'm not entirely convinced about this patch.

I was going to dispute this, and point out that I'm pretty sure
the C++ standard specifically requires the plain-integer 0/0L
definition.  Then I realized this did not actually contradict
your description.

Maybe the thing to do would be to ensure that NULL goes to __null,
then define that to be ((void *) 0) if the compiler doesn't provide
it?  The magic behavior of __null seems like it'd be preferable
where it is available.

-s
-- 
Listen, get this.  Nobody with a good compiler needs to be justified.
--
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/