linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/10] Use __kernel_long

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: <4FB57EB2.4050208@zytor.com>
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2012 15:41:54 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	"H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] Use __kernel_long_t in struct timex

On 05/17/2012 03:32 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> The whole __kernel_ prefix was a mistake, but it at least makes sense
> for certain things where it is really about some random kernel choice
> (ie __kernel_pid_t). Even there I despise it, because it's not really
> about "kernel choice", it's about just the real native type for uid_t
> - the fact that user-mode then occasionally screwed up because glibc
> has chosen crazy extended types is really not a "kernel" issue at all.
> So the naming in general is painful.
> 
> When it comes to the x32 thing I think it's *doubly* wrong, because
> this isn't even about a "kernel choice". It's damn well the native
> machine word-size. The fact that a limited user-mode ABI then limits
> "long" to 32-bit is not the kernels problem.
>
> So I'd really like to see some discussion about naming. What does this
> have to do with "kernel"? Nothing. It's the native word-size of the
> machine, for crying out loud. The fact that some user interfaces may
> limit themselves is not a "user mode vs kernel" thing.

It also puts a clear line between the kernel and user space namespaces,
which has been an ongoing problem (we *still* haven't cleaned out some
namespace pollution in the i386 <asm/signal.h> for example.)

That being said, this is a lot like the __u* and __s* types which we use
instead of <stdint.h> for similar reasons.  I don't know if
__ulong/__slong or __uword/__sword would be better here?

	-hpa

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.

--
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/