linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] kbuild: uapi: upgrade check

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: <20251006190048.GA2395186@ax162>
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2025 12:00:48 -0700
From: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
To: Thomas Weißschuh <thomas.weissschuh@...utronix.de>
Cc: Nicolas Schier <nicolas.schier@...ux.dev>, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Nicolas Schier <nsc@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] kbuild: uapi: upgrade check_sizetypes() warning
 to error

On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 08:16:59AM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> No problematic type usages exist anymore.
> 
> Make sure it stays this way.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Weißschuh <thomas.weissschuh@...utronix.de>
> Reviewed-by: Nicolas Schier <nsc@...nel.org>
> ---
>  usr/include/headers_check.pl | 3 +--
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/usr/include/headers_check.pl b/usr/include/headers_check.pl
> index 36307a137cc1e109e3e1c253f66f3e5935499fc8..36349b21cef5d55241b68ca24dabe6a321b7ce27 100755
> --- a/usr/include/headers_check.pl
> +++ b/usr/include/headers_check.pl
> @@ -159,7 +159,6 @@ sub check_sizetypes
>  		              "found __[us]{8,16,32,64} type " .
>  		              "without #include <linux/types.h>\n";
>  		$linux_types = 2;
> -		# Warn until headers are all fixed
> -		#$ret = 1;
> +		$ret = 1;
>  	}
>  }
> 
> -- 
> 2.50.1
> 

Geert's regression report and subsequent fix made me look a little
closer at this check. Is it even useful to do this anymore now that we
compile test the headers? If these types are found without the
appropriate include, won't there just be an error? Or is this to avoid
the case where a system header may transitively include types.h so the
compile would succeed but the header is not as contained as it could be?

Cheers,
Nathan