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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20171005190730.GA8043@himanshu-Vostro-3559> Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2017 00:37:30 +0530 From: Himanshu Jha <himanshujha199640@...il.com> To: Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org> Cc: Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>, amitkarwar@...il.com, nishants@...vell.com, gbhat@...vell.com, huxm@...vell.com, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] mwifiex: Use put_unaligned_le32 On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 11:02:50AM -0700, Brian Norris wrote: > On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 08:52:33PM +0530, Himanshu Jha wrote: > > There are various instances where a function used in file say for eg > > int func_align (void* a) > > is used and it is defined in align.h > > But many files don't *directly* include align.h and rather include > > any other header which includes align.h > > I believe the general rule is that you should included headers for all > symbols you use, and not rely on implicit includes. > > The modification to the general rule is that not all headers are > intended to be included directly, and in such cases there's likely a > parent header that is the more appropriate target. > > In this case, the key is CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS. It > seems that asm-generic/unaligned.h is set up to include different > headers, based on the expected architecture behavior. > Yes, asm-generic/unaligned.h looks more appopriate and is most generic implementation of unaligned accesses and arc specific. Let's see what Kalle Valo recommends! And then I will send v2 of the patch. Thanks for the information! Himanshu Jha > I wonder if include/linux/unaligned/access_ok.h should have a safety > check (e.g., raise an #error if > !CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS?). > > > Is compiling the file the only way to check if apppropriate header is > > included or is there some other way to check for it. > > I believe it's mostly manual. Implicit includes have been a problem for > anyone who refactors header files. > > Brian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists