linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 23/79] rds.h: use __u8, __u16, __s16, __u32 and _

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: <20151015222105.GA12132@oracle.com>
Date:	Thu, 15 Oct 2015 18:21:05 -0400
From:	Sowmini Varadhan <sowmini.varadhan@...cle.com>
To:	Mikko Rapeli <mikko.rapeli@....fi>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 23/79] rds.h: use __u8, __u16, __s16, __u32 and __s64
 from linux/types.h

On (10/16/15 01:00), Mikko Rapeli wrote:
> 
> What kind of portability should exported userspace headers from Linux kernel
> need?
> 
> Reviews to my previous changes NACKed <stdint.h> usage and
> Documentation/CodingStyle chapter 5 says:
> 
>  (e) Types safe for use in userspace.
> 
>      In certain structures which are visible to userspace, we cannot
>      require C99 types and cannot use the 'u32' form above. Thus, we
>      use __u32 and similar types in all structures which are shared
>      with userspace.

Let's be clear: we are not talking about u32 vs __u32, we are talking
about uint32_t vs __u32 in your patch. 

I dont have the context of your "previous changes NACKed.." etc.
Why can we not require C99 types in rds.h?

Why isnt that a problem for, say, <netinet/in.h> which includes
<stdint.h>?

--Sowmini
--
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/