linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Shorten constant names for EFI variable attributes

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5009DD10.7010205@zytor.com>
Date:	Fri, 20 Jul 2012 15:34:56 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Khalid Aziz <khalid.aziz@...com>
CC:	mjg@...hat.com, mikew@...gle.com, tony.luck@...el.com,
	keescook@...omium.org, gong.chen@...ux.intel.com,
	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, paul.gortmaker@...driver.com,
	maxin.john@...il.com, rdunlap@...otime.net, matt.fleming@...el.com,
	olof@...om.net, dhowells@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Shorten constant names for EFI variable attributes

On 07/20/2012 03:30 PM, Khalid Aziz wrote:
> On 07/20/2012 04:10 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 07/20/2012 03:08 PM, Khalid Aziz wrote:
>>> Replace very long constants for EFI variable attributes
>>> with shorter and more convenient names. Also create an
>>> alias for the current longer names so as to not break
>>> compatibility with current API since these constants
>>> are used by userspace programs. This patch depends on
>>> patch <https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/7/13/313>.
>>
>> I think these some from the EFI specifcation, so NAK IMO.
>>
>>     -hpa
>>
> This patch is based upon earlier discussion at
> <https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/7/13/320>.
>
> You are right that EFI specification uses exactly these long names for
> the constants, but does that mean kernel must also use the exact same
> long constant names? I can see doing that for the sake of consistency.
> At the same time, can we make the kernel code more readable and retain
> compatibility with existing API by using aliases? I slightly prefer
> making kernel code more readable, but I could go either way.
>

I think it makes the kernel code less readable, because now you not only 
need to understand the kernel code and the EFI spec, but also how the 
two maps onto each other. The fact that you then have to introduce 
aliases indicates to me that you're doing something actively broken.

	-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/