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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9accb7aa-d440-40dd-aee9-10b334b0a087@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2024 11:04:06 -0500
From: Konstantin Shkolnyy <kshk@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
Cc: virtualization@...ts.linux.dev, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] vsock/test: fix parameter types in SO_VM_SOCKETS_*
 calls

On 10/31/2024 09:16, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 09:49:54AM -0500, Konstantin Shkolnyy wrote:
>> Change parameters of SO_VM_SOCKETS_* to uint64_t so that they are always
> 
> In include/uapi/linux/vm_sockets.h we talk about "unsigned long long",
> but in the kernel code we use u64. IIUC "unsigned long long" should be 
> u64 on every architecture, at least till we will have some 128-bit cpu, 
> right?

I'm not sure what "unsigned long long" would be on a 128-bit machine.

> What about using `unsigned long long` as documented in the vm_sockets.h?

I use uint64_t because the kernel uses u64. I think, this way the code
isn't vulnerable to potential variability of "unsigned long long".
If we change to "unsigned long long" should we also change the kernel
to "unsigned long long"?


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ