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
| ||
|
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists