linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] EFI fixes

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200710111724.m4jaci73pykalxys@wunner.de>
Date:   Fri, 10 Jul 2020 13:17:24 +0200
From:   Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>
To:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        linux-efi <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] EFI fixes

On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 02:00:34PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 12:09:36PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > I forgot why we care though -- is there any behavior of gnu11
> > that we prefer over the gnu99 behavior, or is it just going with
> > the times because it's the right thing to do? All the interesting
> > features of c11 seem to also be available as extensions in
> > gcc-4.9's gnu89, though I could not find a definite list of the
> > differences.
> 
> Last time (llist_entry_safe() thread) it came up due to local variables in
> loops feature that is not available for gnu89. Both gnu99 and gnu11 is
> fine.

Same for anonymous structs/unions.  I used to have a use case for that
in struct efi_dev_path in include/linux/efi.h, but Ard refactored it
in a gnu89-compatible way for v5.7 with db8952e7094f.

(BTW, revisiting that commit I think it should have been broken into
smaller pieces, in particular the efi_get_device_by_path() argument
and #ifdef change should have gone into a separate commit.)

Thanks,

Lukas