netdev - renaming FIELD_SIZEOF to sizeof_member (was Re: [GIT PULL] treewide conversion to sizeof

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

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