netdev - Re: [PATCH] uapi: avoid namespace conflict in linux/posix

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: <CAHk-=wjF6ek4v04w2O3CuOaauDERfdyduW+h=u9uN5ja1ObLzQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 17 Jun 2019 11:48:47 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
Cc:     Joseph Myers <joseph@...esourcery.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
        Paul Burton <pburton@...ecomp.com>,
        Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] uapi: avoid namespace conflict in linux/posix_types.h

On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 11:19 AM Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Unlike the "val[]" thing, I don't think anybody is supposed to access
> > those fields directly.
>
> Well, glibc already calls it __val …

Hmm. If user space already doesn't see the "val[]" array anyway, I
guess we could just do that in the kernel too.

Looking at the glibc headers I have for fds_bits, glibc seems to do
*both* fds_bits[] and __fds_bits[] depending on __USE_XOPEN or not.

Anyway, that all implies to me that we might as well just go the truly
mindless way, and just do the double underscores and not bother with
renaming any files.

I thought people actually might care about the "val[]" name because I
find that in documentation, but since apparently it's already not
visible to user space anyway, that can't be true.

I guess that makes the original patch acceptable, and we should just
do the same thing to fds_bits..

                     Linus