linux-kernel - Re: [git pull] drm for 6.15-rc1

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: <87tt782htn.fsf@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2025 15:21:24 +0300
From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>, Linus Torvalds
 <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
 dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>, LKML
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [git pull] drm for 6.15-rc1

On Mon, 31 Mar 2025, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com> wrote:
> Please don't keep it fully isolated to DRM.. This new stuff did find
> an error in the fwctl UAPI headers around uuid_t that had gone unnoticed:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/f6489337-67c7-48c8-b48a-58603ec15328@paulmck-laptop/raw
>
> I think that was a valuable report, you just need to find a way to
> make the tests it runs more acceptable..

The header checks have existed for uapi headers before, including the,
uh, turds, but apparently adding them in drm broke the camel's back.

> FWIW, there is a "trick" I like to use for C header files, just ensure
> that some C file someplace includes each header file first in the
> #include list. It automatically makes the compiler check it is self
> contained naturally. You can get pretty far by paying attention to
> this detail and it costs nothing at build time.

It's a fairly good solution for a lot of cases, but it falls a bit
short. I'd additionally like to ensure:

- Header guards are in place
- There are no kernel-doc warnings
- Headers not associated 1:1 with a .c file are also checked

Finally, the cost of having to keep checking the headers are in fact
included first, and nagging about it in reviews, is not without cost.

BR,
Jani.


-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel