linux-kernel - Re: Can we sort out the prototypes within the cifs headers?

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: <CAH2r5ms9VSfTebnVe24bM7V5TVJkZgG=cOmZrxJo+RCPf1ZgtA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2025 10:55:08 -0600
From: Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: Paulo Alcantara <pc@...guebit.org>, Enzo Matsumiya <ematsumiya@...e.de>, 
	Steve French <sfrench@...ba.org>, Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@...rosoft.com>, 
	Stefan Metzmacher <metze@...ba.org>, linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org, netfs@...ts.linux.dev, 
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Can we sort out the prototypes within the cifs headers?

> (4) Move SMB1-specific functions out to smb1proto.h.  Move SMB2/3-specific
     functions out to smb2proto.h.

I am generally in favor of those type of cleanup patches (as
potentially higher priority) as we want to be able to turn off/remove
SMB1 code easily and not confuse old, less secure SMB1, with modern
dialects

On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 7:26 AM David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Paulo, Enzo, et al.,
>
> You may have seen my patch:
>
>         https://lore.kernel.org/linux-cifs/20251124124251.3565566-4-dhowells@redhat.com/T/#u
>
> to sort out the cifs header file prototypes, which are a bit of a mess: some
> seem to have been placed haphazardly in the headers, some have unnamed
> arguments and also sometimes the names in the .h and the .c don't match.
>
> Now Steve specifically namechecked you two as this will affect the backporting
> of patches.  Whilst this only affects the prototypes in the headers and not
> the implementations in C files, it does cause chunks of the headers to move
> around.
>
> Can we agree on at least a subset of the cleanups to be made?  In order of
> increasing conflictiveness, I have:
>
>  (1) Remove 'extern'.  cifs has a mix of externed and non-externed, but the
>      documented approach is to get rid of externs on prototypes.
>
>  (2) (Re)name the arguments in the prototypes to be the same as in the
>      implementations.
>
>  (3) Adjust the layout of each prototype to match the implementation, just
>      with a semicolon on the end.  My script partially does this, but moves
>      the return type onto the same line as the function name.
>
>  (4) Move SMB1-specific functions out to smb1proto.h.  Move SMB2/3-specific
>      functions out to smb2proto.h.
>
>  (5) Divide the lists of prototypes (particularly the massive one in
>      cifsproto.h) up into blocks according to which .c file contains the
>      implementation and preface each block with a comment that indicates the
>      name of the relevant .c file.
>
>      The comment could then be used as a key for the script to maintain the
>      division in future.
>
>  (6) Sort each block by position in the .c file to make it easier to maintain
>      them.
>
> A hybrid approach is also possible, where we run the script to do the basic
> sorting and then manually correct the output.
>
> David
>
>


-- 
Thanks,

Steve