linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/8] staging: lustre: lnet: change wire protocol typedefs to proper structure

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: <20170130064018.GA4108@kroah.com>
Date:   Mon, 30 Jan 2017 07:40:19 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     James Simmons <jsimmons@...radead.org>
Cc:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        James Simmons <uja.ornl@...oo.com>,
        Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@...el.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@...el.com>,
        Lustre Development List <lustre-devel@...ts.lustre.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] staging: lustre: lnet: change wire protocol typedefs
 to proper structure

On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 11:56:38PM +0000, James Simmons wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, 2017-01-21 at 19:40 -0500, James Simmons wrote:
> > > The upstream kernel requires proper structures so
> > > convert nearly all the LNet wire protocols typedefs in
> > > the LNet core.
> > 
> > Thanks.
> > 
> > Perhaps s/\bWIRE_ATTR\b/__packed/g one day too
> 
> I liked to keep that one.

Sorry, but no.

> The point of WIRE_ATTR isn't to be some abstraction but to label that
> struct as something that goes over the wire. This lets people know
> that it would break something if you change that structure. Looks like
> I need to send a patch that adds a comment explaning the meaning of
> WIRE_ATTR.

No, please remove it, it's not anything that any other kernel subsystem
uses.

It's easy to know if you will break something, anything that crosses the
user/kernel boundry falls into that category, so if it is in a uapi .h
file, that's going to be the case.

thanks,

greg k-h