[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5cf8ad88-629c-e75a-df99-e893b8af967f@wanadoo.fr>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2022 18:50:12 +0200
From: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] crypto: x86/camellia - Replace kernel.h with the
necessary inclusions
Le 09/06/2022 à 12:15, Herbert Xu a écrit :
> On Sun, Jun 05, 2022 at 09:32:53AM +0200, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
>> When kernel.h is used in the headers it adds a lot into dependency hell,
>> especially when there are circular dependencies are involved.
>>
>> Replace kernel.h inclusion with the list of what is really being used.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
>> ---
>> arch/x86/crypto/camellia.h | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/crypto/camellia.h b/arch/x86/crypto/camellia.h
>> index 1dcea79e8f8e..547fb7e30928 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/crypto/camellia.h
>> +++ b/arch/x86/crypto/camellia.h
>> @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
>>
>> #include <crypto/b128ops.h>
>> #include <linux/crypto.h>
>> -#include <linux/kernel.h>
>> +#include <linux/types.h>
>>
>> #define CAMELLIA_MIN_KEY_SIZE 16
>> #define CAMELLIA_MAX_KEY_SIZE 32
>
> This is not sufficient. For example, asmlinkage isn't explicitly
> defined by any of these header files so it would be relying on an
> implicit inclusion which is prone to breakage.
Agreed, I missed that.
>
> Did you audit the entire file?
Yes, but I missed the asmlinkage.
In fact, I've sent a few "obvious" (but nothing is never obvious at the
end...) patches like that to see the interest.
I've spotted a few .h file with "easy to check" content.
Mostly #define, function declarations, a few u<something> datatypes.
Then, I made the #include simplification and compile tested the change.
If it worked, I consider that the patch looks fine.
In this particular case, I guess that the 'asmlinkage' should come from
another #include when "camellia.h" is used.
My goal was not to introduce some new hidden constraints related to the
order of the included .h. I just wanted to make them explicit (and
complete) and start to simplify things.
As said, nothing is never obvious, and I'll stay away from this kind of
changes :)
Thanks a lot for the review.
CJ
>
> Cheers,
Powered by blists - more mailing lists