linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/17] Add memberof(), split some headers, and slightly simplify code

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: <YZfHi0GXk129wmQE@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 19 Nov 2021 17:49:31 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     "Alejandro Colomar (man-pages)" <alx.manpages@...il.com>
Cc:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/17] Add memberof(), split some headers, and slightly
 simplify code

On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 04:43:04PM +0100, Alejandro Colomar (man-pages) wrote:
> On 11/19/21 16:38, Alejandro Colomar (man-pages) wrote:
> > On 11/19/21 16:34, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >> On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 04:06:27PM +0100, Alejandro Colomar (man-pages) wrote:
> >>> Yes, I would like to untangle the dependencies.
> >>>
> >>> The main reason I started doing this splitting
> >>> is because I wouldn't be able to include
> >>> <linux/stddef.h> in some headers,
> >>> because it pulled too much stuff that broke unrelated things.
> >>>
> >>> So that's why I started from there.
> >>>
> >>> I for example would like to get NULL in memberof()
> >>> without puling anything else,
> >>> so <linux/NULL.h> makes sense for that.
> >>
> >> I don't believe that the code that uses NULL won't include types.h.
> > 
> > I'm not sure about the error I got (I didn't write it down),
> > but I got a compilation error.
> > That's why I split NULL.
> 
> Now that I think about it twice,
> since I'm rewriting these changes from scratch,
> I think the error might have been
> not due to pulling too much stuff,
> but due to circular dependencies.
> 
> Having more granularity
> helps precisely define the dependencies.
> 
> I think the problem was in
> <linux/memberof.h> requiring NULL from <linux/stddef.h>
> <linux/stddef.h> requiring memberof() from <linux/memberof.h>
> or something like that.

There is no memberof.h in the kernel. Something is done wrongly on your series.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko