[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <201910021115.9888E9B@keescook>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2019 11:19:16 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Pankaj Bharadiya <pankaj.laxminarayan.bharadiya@...el.com>,
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: renaming FIELD_SIZEOF to sizeof_member (was Re: [GIT PULL] treewide
conversion to sizeof_member() for v5.4-rc1)
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 01:56:55PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 01:06:01PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > (a) why didn't this use the already existing and well-named macro
> > that nobody really had issues with?
>
> That was suggested, but other folks wanted the more accurate "member"
> instead of "field" since a treewide change was happening anyway:
> https://www.openwall.com/lists/kernel-hardening/2019/07/02/2
>
> At the end of the day, I really don't care -- I just want to have _one_
> macro. :)
>
> > (b) I see no sign of the networking people having been asked about
> > their preferences.
>
> Yeah, that's entirely true. Totally my mistake; it seemed like a trivial
> enough change that I didn't want to bother too many people. But let's
> fix that now... Dave, do you have any concerns about this change of
> FIELD_SIZEOF() to sizeof_member() (or if it prevails, sizeof_field())?
David, can you weight in on this? Are you okay with a mass renaming of
FIELD_SIZEOF() to sizeof_member(), as the largest user of the old macro
is in networking?
Thanks!
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists