linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fuse: fix integer type usage in uapi header

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: <YjV6w6UITwidXzNw@kroah.com>
Date:   Sat, 19 Mar 2022 07:40:03 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc:     Carlos Llamas <cmllamas@...gle.com>,
        Alessio Balsini <balsini@...roid.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        kernel-team <kernel-team@...roid.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fuse: fix integer type usage in uapi header

On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 08:24:55PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 at 18:14, Carlos Llamas <cmllamas@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > Kernel uapi headers are supposed to use __[us]{8,16,32,64} defined by
> > <linux/types.h> instead of 'uint32_t' and similar. This patch changes
> > all the definitions in this header to use the correct type. Previous
> > discussion of this topic can be found here:
> >
> >   https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/6/5/18
> 
> This is effectively a revert of these two commits:
> 
> 4c82456eeb4d ("fuse: fix type definitions in uapi header")

That's a really odd commit, and should not have been recommended.  uapi
headers have to use __u32 and friends, otherwise things can be wrong.

> 7e98d53086d1 ("Synchronize fuse header with one used in library")
> 
> And so we've gone full circle and back to having to modify the header
> to be usable in the cross platform library...
> 
> And also made lots of churn for what reason exactly?

I think the original change above was wrong.

thanks,

greg k-h