linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] netfilter: ipv4: use preferred kernel types

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: <CAJX_Q+0ZOq5h0yu_E4ddQgMm4sfaijuM72A-1VOqCiBAKxCiOg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 30 Jan 2016 16:41:50 -0200
From:	Lucas Tanure <tanure@...ux.com>
To:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
	Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
	Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@...ckhole.kfki.hu>,
	"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
	coreteam@...filter.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] netfilter: ipv4: use preferred kernel types

On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 4:26 PM, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 2016-01-30 at 09:51 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> On Sat, 2016-01-30 at 12:05 -0200, Lucas Tanure wrote:
>> > On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net> wrote:
>> > > On 30.01, Lucas Tanure wrote:
>> > > > As suggested by checkpatch.pl:
>> > > > CHECK: Prefer kernel type 'uX' over 'uintX_t'
>> > >
>> > > You might have noticed we have literally hundreds of them spread over 100
>> > > files in the netfilter code. We'll gradually change them when the code is
>> > > touched anyways.
>> > >
>> > > >  net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_tables.c | 5 ++---
>> > > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > Yes, I checked that. But would be better to change that now?
>> > Because:
>> > - could take years to anyone to touch the code, as the code already
>> > works very well
>> > - be more standardized could facilitate reading the code
>> > - It's a good way to encourage new people to contribute to the code
>> >
>> > Thanks!
>>
>> These changes are a pain for people having to constantly backport fixes
>> into stable kernels, or rebase their patches before upstream
>> submissions.
>>
>> Things like 'git cherry-pick' , 'git rebase' no longer work.
>> This is a huge pain, and manual editing to resolve conflicts often
>> add bugs.
>>
>> Really, do you believe the 'uX' over 'uintX_t' stuff really matters for
>> people working on adding new features and fixing bugs ?
>>
>> I am certain that if you had to work like us, you would quickly see the
>> utility of such changes is negative.
>>
>> Sure, new submissions should be clean, but 'fixing' old code is not
>> worth it.
>
> That might depend on whether or not the linux kernel is
> a "long-life project" and whether or no any old branch
> of it is also important and sufficiently long-life.
>
> The active life of a backport branch for the linux kernel
> seems to be 3 or 4 years.  The linux kernel will likely
> be useful for a few more decades beyond that.
>
> Complex and long-life projects like the linux kernel
> might benefit more in code complexity reduction patches
> like these rather than code stasis for backward porting
> ease.
>
> In general, arguing for stasis leads to ossification,
> slow decline.
>
> Change for change's sake is poor, but changes to reduce
> complexity, improve maintainability (for some measure of
> it) and especially improve performance should be
> welcomed where feasible.
>

My goal was to improve maintainability for the code, and with time,
contribute with meaningful code.
As you might have noticed I didn't fix every checkpatch.pl warning and error.
I just sent the ones that I thought would improve the maintainability.

And backport fixes will always be a pain, no matter what.

Thanks for all the comments.
Sorry for anything.