linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] Revert "staging: mmal-vchiq: Avoid use of bool in structures"

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: <Y3bN8I7DlxRUZumH@lunn.ch>
Date:   Fri, 18 Nov 2022 01:12:32 +0100
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Umang Jain <umang.jain@...asonboard.com>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham@...asonboard.com>,
        Broadcom internal kernel review list 
        <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
        Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>,
        Dave Stevenson <dave.stevenson@...pberrypi.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Hans Verkuil <hverkuil-cisco@...all.nl>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@...nel.org>,
        Ray Jui <rjui@...adcom.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Revert "staging: mmal-vchiq: Avoid use of bool in
 structures"

> > > > >    struct vchiq_mmal_port {
> > > > > -       u32 enabled:1;
> > > > > +       bool enabled:1;
> > > > Is this a direct revert with 'git revert' ?
> > > 
> > > No. It had conflicts plus I added the ':1' initialization to keep the logic
> > > same (in case 'enabled' gets used directly). Similar pattern come up with:
> > >      ($) git grep 'bool' -- '*.[h]' | grep '\:1'
> > > 
> > > So it shouldn't be an issue.
> > Please don't do that "bool foo:1" makes no sense.  Drop the ":1"
> > please.
> 
> It won't affect this patch but if you take a look at 2/3 - you'll see a bool
> flag 'in_use' that needs to be initialized (as it's getting used directly).
> 
> I can move the initialization part in the function (_init() or something)
> and drop the ":1" as you mentioned. That's  fine as well but I do find
> patterns of 'bool foo:1' in the codebase so I assumed it would be safe to
> use.

Does :1 really initialise the variable? In "u32 enabled:1" it means
this is a 1 bit wide bit field. It seems odd that bool is somehow
special and :1 means something else.

	Andrew