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: <CAHk-=wgnaWN1V2G1zyk8zqTVQBdHBBHcdkB-rek5z2VeRq4nmA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 8 Dec 2019 15:19:38 -0800
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Pankaj Bharadiya <pankaj.laxminarayan.bharadiya@...el.com>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] treewide conversion to sizeof_member() for v5.5-rc1

On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 11:48 AM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> Please pull this mostly mechanical treewide conversion to the single and
> more accurately named sizeof_member() macro for the end of v5.5-rc1.

So this one I'm _still_ not convinced about. It makes yet another name
for something we've had before, which just annoys me. And maybe it's
the 13-year old in me, but "sizeof_member()" just makes me go "that's
puerile".

I _can_ see why we'd want to standardize on one of the tree versions
we have, but I can't really see the problem with the existing #define
that we have, and that is used (admittedly not all that much):
sizeof_field().

                Linus