linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] lib/uuid.c: eliminate uuid_[bl]e

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: <20160601150705.27355.qmail@ns.sciencehorizons.net>
Date:	1 Jun 2016 11:07:05 -0400
From:	"George Spelvin" <linux@...encehorizons.net>
To:	andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, joe@...ches.com,
	linux@...encehorizons.net
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, bbjorn@...k.no,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tytso@....edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lib/uuid.c: eliminate uuid_[bl]e_index arrays

On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 at 15:32:47, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-05-31 at 14:36 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
>> On Tue, 2016-05-31 at 16:31 -0400, George Spelvin wrote:
>>> -static int __uuid_to_bin(const char *uuid, __u8 b[16], const u8
>>> ei[16])
>>> +static int __uuid_to_bin(const char uuid[36], __u8 b[16], const u8
>>> si[16])
>> 
>> Functions with sized array arguments are generally undesired.
> 
> That function follows existing UUID API. Since we have now it
> consolidated in one place someone may fix it eventually.

Just to clarify:

int foo(char *);
int foo(char *floccinaucinihilipilifcation);
int foo(char *p);
int foo(char p[]);
int foo(char []);
int foo(char p[1]);
int foo(char p[999999999]);

are all the exact same declaration.  There is no API change; the only
difference is stylistic.  (Try it!  Copy them to a .c file and
compile it.  Observe the lack of conflicting declaration warnings.)

Although the compiler doesn't care, I happen to prefer to include
parameter names for the benefit of someone reading the header files.

For the same reason, if the pointer is to the start of an array with
definite length (that's not 1), I prefer to use the array form showing
that length.

But it's a matter of style, not substance, either way.