netdev - RE: [PATCH] qed: add missing header dependencies

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]

Date:   Wed, 7 Sep 2016 12:31:03 +0000
From:   Yuval Mintz <Yuval.Mintz@...gic.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
CC:     Baoyou Xie <baoyou.xie@...aro.org>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "xie.baoyou@....com.cn" <xie.baoyou@....com.cn>,
        Ariel Elior <Ariel.Elior@...gic.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] qed: add missing header dependencies

> > While I obviously have no strong objection for including
> > qed_selftest.h from qed_selftest.c, I'm not sure I understand which C
> > standard dictates this requirement.
> > Why should a function definition [not call] be preceded by a prototype?
> 
> - When a function is defined in one file and used in another, you want
>   both files to include the same header that has the declaration to
>   ensure that the types are identical. There are cases where the
>   prototype is changed after the fact in an incompatible way, causing
>   silent data corruption on some configurations but maybe not on others.

O.k., motivation is clear.
But this really isn't enforced by the ansi-c standard, right?

Anyway, thanks.

Acked-by: Yuval Mintz <Yuval.Mintz@...gic.com>