netdev - Re: [iproute PATCH v3 0/6] Big C99 style initializer rework

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160628180734.GC6733@orbyte.nwl.cc>
Date:	Tue, 28 Jun 2016 20:07:34 +0200
From:	Phil Sutter <phil@....cc>
To:	David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>
Cc:	Stephen Hemminger <shemming@...cade.com>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
	Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>,
	Julien Floret <julien.floret@...nd.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [iproute PATCH v3 0/6] Big C99 style initializer rework

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 11:59:04AM -0600, David Ahern wrote:
> On 6/28/16 11:58 AM, Phil Sutter wrote:
> >> since .ifr_qlen is already referenced in that function seems like your
> >> suggestion above (struct ifreq ifr = { .ifr_qlen = 0 };) should be
> >> acceptable.
> >
> > You mean regarding compatibility of using that define? Or are you
> > concerned with gcc creating suboptimal code?
> 
> no, I was thinking in terms of open coding knowledge of a struct.

Still not sure if I understand you correctly. These are not typedefs, so
users are supposed to know the internals and removing a field means
potentially breaking every single user.

> > I'd rather use a more generic approach than the above. Retrospectively,
> > I'd rather have that brace orgy instead of the above since it's
> > intention is more clear and it can be dropped once either gcc guys
> > manage to backport their fix or the last distribution has updated it's
> > compiler.
> 
> ha, that's funny.

At least someone can laugh about it. :)

Cheers, Phil