linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v11 4/8] fork: Add USER

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: <CAHk-=wjF6j264jDFcY3wgzOUA2RL2SpD2oL5BF9JqCkz3A413Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 2 Feb 2023 16:19:57 -0800
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Mike Christie <michael.christie@...cle.com>
Cc:     hch@...radead.org, stefanha@...hat.com, jasowang@...hat.com,
        mst@...hat.com, sgarzare@...hat.com,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, brauner@...nel.org,
        ebiederm@...ssion.com, konrad.wilk@...cle.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 4/8] fork: Add USER_WORKER flag to ignore signals

On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 3:25 PM Mike Christie
<michael.christie@...cle.com> wrote:
>
> +       if (args->worker_flags & USER_WORKER_SIG_IGN)
> +               ignore_signals(p);

Same comment as for the other case.

There are real reasons to avoid bitfields:

 - you can't pass addresses to them around

 - it's easier to read or assign multiple fields in one go

 - they are horrible for ABI issues due to the exact bit ordering and
padding being very subtle

but none of those issues are relevant here, where it's a kernel-internal ABI.

All these use-cases seem to actually be testing one bit at a time, and
the "assignments" are structure initializers for which named bitfields
are actually perfect and just make the initializer more legible.

            Linus