netdev - RE: [PATCH] genetlink: unify registration functions

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: <AE90C24D6B3A694183C094C60CF0A2F6026B7429@saturn3.aculab.com>
Date:	Mon, 18 Nov 2013 09:54:13 -0000
From:	"David Laight" <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:	"David Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc:	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <johannes.berg@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] genetlink: unify registration functions

> As a future simplification perhaps we can even elide the array length
> argument.  Most pass ARRAY_SIZE(foo) but there is at least one case
> (DLM) which passes a constant, which is error prone.
> 
> #define genl_register_family_with_ops(family, ops)
> 	__genl_register_family_with_ops(family, ops, ARRAY_SIZE(ops))
> 
> something like that.

Probably best to add a compile time check that ARRAY_SIZE(ops)
isn't zero - as might happen if a pointer is passed.
In some cases this can happen even when the source code appears
to contain the array size.

Or does ARRAY_SIZE(x) already contain a check that
sizeof(x) % sizeof(*(x)) is zero?

	David



--
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