linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v6 01/23] asm: simd context helper API

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: <CAHmME9o7_Xh=dZfnEHbPCJdqzXW1L5R7qjg=_sqPZiP2KmTc1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 1 Oct 2018 03:43:25 +0200
From:   "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Samuel Neves <sneves@....uc.pt>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v6 01/23] asm: simd context helper API

On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 7:35 AM Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Oh, and another thing (and I'm surprised checkpatch.pl didn't complain
> >>>>>>> about it): the use of typedef in new code is strongly discouraged.
> >>>>>>> This policy predates my involvement, so perhaps Joe can elaborate on
> >>>>>>> the rationale?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In case it matters, the motivation for making this a typedef is I
> >>>>>> could imagine this at some point turning into a more complicated
> >>>>>> struct on certain platforms and that would make refactoring easier. I
> >>>>>> could just make it `struct simd_context` now with 1 member though...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes that makes sense
> >>>>
> >>>> The rationale for it being a typedef or moving to a struct now?
> >>>
> >>> Yes just switch to a struct.
> >>
> >> Okay. No problem with that, but will wait to hear from Joe first.
> >
> > Why do you need to hear from me again?
> >
> > As far as I know, the only info about typedef avoidance are in
> > Documentation/process/coding-style.rst section 5.
> >
> >
>
> I personally prefer it with the typedef. If this were my code, I’d say the coding style is silly for opaque tiny structs like this.

I'll stick with a typedef. Reading the style guide, this clearly falls
into 5.a, 5.b, and maybe 5.c. For 5.a, at some point this will
possibly contain architecture specific blobs. For 5.b, it is just an
enum (integer) right now.