netdev - Re: [PATCH] mwifiex: Use put_unaligned

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:   Fri, 6 Oct 2017 00:37:30 +0530
From:   Himanshu Jha <himanshujha199640@...il.com>
To:     Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
Cc:     Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>, amitkarwar@...il.com,
        nishants@...vell.com, gbhat@...vell.com, huxm@...vell.com,
        linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mwifiex: Use put_unaligned_le32

On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 11:02:50AM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 08:52:33PM +0530, Himanshu Jha wrote:
> > There are various instances where a function used in file say for eg
> > int func_align (void* a)
> > is used and it is defined in align.h
> > But many files don't *directly* include align.h and rather include
> > any other header which includes align.h
> 
> I believe the general rule is that you should included headers for all
> symbols you use, and not rely on implicit includes.
> 
> The modification to the general rule is that not all headers are
> intended to be included directly, and in such cases there's likely a
> parent header that is the more appropriate target.
> 
> In this case, the key is CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS. It
> seems that asm-generic/unaligned.h is set up to include different
> headers, based on the expected architecture behavior.
>
Yes, asm-generic/unaligned.h looks more appopriate and is most generic
implementation of unaligned accesses and  arc specific.

Let's see what Kalle Valo recommends! And then I will send v2 of the
patch.

Thanks for the information!

Himanshu Jha

> I wonder if include/linux/unaligned/access_ok.h should have a safety
> check (e.g., raise an #error if
> !CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS?).
> 
> > Is compiling the file the only way to check if apppropriate header is
> > included or is there some other way to check for it.
> 
> I believe it's mostly manual. Implicit includes have been a problem for
> anyone who refactors header files.
> 
> Brian