netdev - Re: [patch 27/28] Introduce U16_MAX and U32

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: <alpine.LFD.0.999.0708140028420.29609@enigma.security.iitk.ac.in>
Date:	Tue, 14 Aug 2007 00:33:13 +0530 (IST)
From:	Satyam Sharma <satyam@...radead.org>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 27/28] Introduce U16_MAX and U32_MAX



On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:

> Hi David,
> 
> 
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007, David Miller wrote:
> [...]
> > 1) The reiserfs definition is better, it is _type_ based.
> >    Please use (~(__u16)0) and (~(__u32)0), respectively.
> 
> Hmm, in that case ((__u16)0xffff) and ((__u32)0xffffffff) are probably
> better and clearer -- as that's what u16_max and u32_max are, after all.
> 
> We do require the (~0) thing for the max int/uint/long types, but that's
> because those are types where the number-of-bits is not known when writing
> the macro definition -- but that's not case with u16 and u32, so the
> 0xff... variants are clearer, IMHO.
> 
> 
> > 2) The reiserfs definition is going to define an equivalent
> >    value, so just adding an #undef and still letting reiserfs
> >    override is wrong.  Why put a common define in kernel.h
> >    if other headers still keep their own crufty copy too?
> 
> Because removing the (re-)definition of U32_MAX from in there in
> reiserfs_fs.h will break builds of all userspace users of U32_MAX and
> max_reiserfs_offset(), would it not? I haven't looked at any reiserfs
> userspace tools source code, so possibly none such (that use
> max_reiserfs_offset) exist, but I thought it better to be safe.
> I'll have a look at the reiserfs-utils package, just in case.

I checked with latest reiserfsprogs available from namesys.com and also
reiserfs-utils package available from Fedora, and it appears there are
no users of either U32_MAX or max_reiserfs_offset() in any userspace
reiserfs tools, so we're safe in removing the U32_MAX from
include/linux/reiserfs_fs.h.


Thanks,
Satyam
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html