linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v06 12/36] x86 uapi asm/signal.h: use __kernel_size_t instead of size

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: <CAK8P3a1BdOB2Wmvi=KBXbKT+rpwCrjwBcmW=9wNYtC+eTN9XNw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 7 Aug 2017 16:30:43 +0200
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Mikko Rapeli <mikko.rapeli@....fi>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v06 12/36] x86 uapi asm/signal.h: use __kernel_size_t
 instead of size_t

On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 6:44 PM, Mikko Rapeli <mikko.rapeli@....fi> wrote:
> Fixes userspace compilation error:
>
> error: unknown type name ‘size_t’
>
> Signed-off-by: Mikko Rapeli <mikko.rapeli@....fi>
> Cc: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
> Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/signal.h | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/signal.h b/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/signal.h
> index 8264f47cf53e..74346db30758 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/signal.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/signal.h
> @@ -127,7 +127,7 @@ struct sigaction {
>  typedef struct sigaltstack {
>         void __user *ss_sp;
>         int ss_flags;
> -       size_t ss_size;
> +       __kernel_size_t ss_size;
>  } stack_t;
>

In patch 14, you took a different approach based on an earlier comment
of mine, for the same structure. I think we should definitely take the same
approach for signal.h across all architectures, whichever we end up using.

      Arnd