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: <CAKv+Gu-9i28ncTCzZLFLoJsmWjVJGiJAUCmRCCc6VhiqeySV0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 2 Oct 2018 09:18:12 +0200
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
To:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        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 <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v6 01/23] asm: simd context helper API

On 1 October 2018 at 03:43, Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@...c4.com> wrote:
> 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.

I can live with that, but other may still object.

In any case, since you are using the enum member as a bitfield, it
would be better to typedef it to int instead, and retain the enum
definition only for the symbolic constants.