linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] treewide conversion to sizeof

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: <201909261347.3F04AFA0@keescook>
Date:   Thu, 26 Sep 2019 13:56:55 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Pankaj Bharadiya <pankaj.laxminarayan.bharadiya@...el.com>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] treewide conversion to sizeof_member() for v5.4-rc1

On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 01:06:01PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>  (a) why didn't this use the already existing and well-named macro
> that nobody really had issues with?

That was suggested, but other folks wanted the more accurate "member"
instead of "field" since a treewide change was happening anyway:
https://www.openwall.com/lists/kernel-hardening/2019/07/02/2

At the end of the day, I really don't care -- I just want to have _one_
macro. :)

>  (b) I see no sign of the networking people having been asked about
> their preferences.

Yeah, that's entirely true. Totally my mistake; it seemed like a trivial
enough change that I didn't want to bother too many people. But let's
fix that now... Dave, do you have any concerns about this change of
FIELD_SIZEOF() to sizeof_member() (or if it prevails, sizeof_field())?

-- 
Kees Cook