linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 04/10] seccomp: Migrate to use SYSCALL

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]

Date:   Sun, 15 Nov 2020 19:35:53 +0100
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@...labora.com>
Cc:     mingo@...hat.com, keescook@...omium.org, arnd@...db.de,
        luto@...capital.net, wad@...omium.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        paul@...l-moore.com, eparis@...hat.com, oleg@...hat.com,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        x86@...nel.org, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@...labora.com>,
        kernel@...labora.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/10] seccomp: Migrate to use SYSCALL_WORK flag

On Fri, Nov 13 2020 at 22:29, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote:
>  
> +enum syscall_work_bit {
> +	SYSCALL_WORK_SECCOMP		= 0,

enums start at 0, so why do you need an explicit assignment?

> +};
> +
> +#define _SYSCALL_WORK_SECCOMP BIT(SYSCALL_WORK_SECCOMP)

Do we really have to repeat the nonsense from TIF/_TIF in the naming
here? Can we please name this in a way which makes it obvious what is
what?

Thanks,

        tglx