linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86, pkeys: fix siginfo ABI breakage from new field

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160301095432.29f247e0@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:	Tue, 1 Mar 2016 09:54:32 +1100
From:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...e.hu,
	peterz@...radead.org, linux-next@...r.kernel.org, deller@....de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, pkeys: fix siginfo ABI breakage from new field

Hi Ingo,

On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 09:01:43 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> * Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> 
> > > u32?  
> > 
> > It would have to be __u32, but we already use int and unsigned int
> > extensively in the siginfo structure (which are both always assumed to
> > be 32 bits).  So "unsigned int" probably makes most sense.  
> 
> No. This whole mishap is an object lesson in why it's a bad idea to ever use ABI 
> types outside of the __[us][8|16|32|64] space: some of them are 'fine', some of 
> them (like longs) are not.

Absolutely. I was just trying to be consistent with the rest of the structure.

Dave has submitted a follow up version which I have Acked.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell