linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v3 02/17] zinc: introduce minimal cryptography library

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: <CALCETrXXg_nnp_pafK3+Pwd00PRUr=X=WfLu+YFYeggRs8-i1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 17 Sep 2018 09:06:36 -0700
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
Cc:     Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, andrew@...n.ch,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Samuel Neves <sneves@....uc.pt>,
        Jean-Philippe Aumasson <jeanphilippe.aumasson@...il.com>,
        Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 02/17] zinc: introduce minimal cryptography library

> On Sep 17, 2018, at 8:28 AM, Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@...c4.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 4:52 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>>> * (Nit) The GCC command line -include'd .h files contain variable and
>>> function definitions so they are actually .c files.
>>
>> Hmm. I would suggest just getting rid of the -include magic entirely.  The resulting ifdef will be more comprehensible.
>
> I really don't think so, actually. The way the -include stuff works
> now is that the glue code is inlined in the same place that the
> assembly object file is added to the build object list, so it gels
> together cleanly, as the thing is defined and set in one single place.
> I could go back to the ifdefs - and even make them as clean as
> possible - but I think that puts more things in more places and is
> therefore more confusing. The -include system now works extremely
> well.

Is it really better than:

#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
#include "whatever"
#endif

It seems a more obfuscated than needed to put the equivalent of that
into the Makefile, and I don't think people really like searching
through the Makefile to figure out why the code does what it does.