linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 04/11] staging: pi433: Rename enum optionOnOff in rf69

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <77e2eeac-4f80-82f7-d7e2-fe52d3ea7e3e@smarthome-wolf.de>
Date:   Thu, 7 Dec 2017 00:17:32 +0200
From:   Marcus Wolf <marcus.wolf@...rthome-wolf.de>
To:     Simon Sandström <simon@...anor.nu>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc:     gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        linux@...f-Entwicklungen.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/11] staging: pi433: Rename enum optionOnOff in
 rf69_enum.h



Am 06.12.2017 um 21:57 schrieb Simon Sandström:
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 01:44:14PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 12:31:31PM +0200, Marcus Wolf wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 06.12.2017 um 12:23 schrieb Dan Carpenter:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wow...  This was the one patch I thought was going to sink this
>>>> patchset...
>>>
>>> I don't get that. What do you mean?
>>>
>>>> Isn't enum optionOnOff part of the userspace headers?
>>>>
>>>> I thought we weren't allowed to change that.
>>>
>>> All enums are for user space (or inteded to be used in userspace in future).
>>> Didn't introduce enums for internal use.
>>
>> So what I'm asking is if we do this change, does it break any userspace
>> programs which are used *right now*.  In other words will programs stop
>> compiling because we've renamed an enum?
>>
>> regards,
>> dan carpenter
>>
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I'm not sure about this so I have to ask: wouldn't the header need to be
> in include/uapi/ for userspace to use them? Or is it "allowed" for
> userspace programs to use this internal header? Or are we afraid to
> break userspace programs that keeps a copy of pi433_if.h?
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Simon
> 

Hi Simon,

in principle, I think you are right. With my first patch, offering the 
driver I did it that way, but Greg asked me to migrate everything 
(including docu) into staging/pi433. I think, that's related to being in 
staging.
At the moment, I copy pi433_if.h and rf69_enum.h to my userspace 
program, in order to be able to compile it.

To be honest, I am a little bit astonished about that question. Don't 
you do a regression test after such a redesign? I would be a little bit 
afraid to offer such redesign without testing.


Regards,
Marcus