netdev - Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] vsock/test: fix parameter types in SO_VM_SOCKETS

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: <9accb7aa-d440-40dd-aee9-10b334b0a087@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2024 11:04:06 -0500
From: Konstantin Shkolnyy <kshk@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
Cc: virtualization@...ts.linux.dev, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] vsock/test: fix parameter types in SO_VM_SOCKETS_*
 calls

On 10/31/2024 09:16, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 09:49:54AM -0500, Konstantin Shkolnyy wrote:
>> Change parameters of SO_VM_SOCKETS_* to uint64_t so that they are always
> 
> In include/uapi/linux/vm_sockets.h we talk about "unsigned long long",
> but in the kernel code we use u64. IIUC "unsigned long long" should be 
> u64 on every architecture, at least till we will have some 128-bit cpu, 
> right?

I'm not sure what "unsigned long long" would be on a 128-bit machine.

> What about using `unsigned long long` as documented in the vm_sockets.h?

I use uint64_t because the kernel uses u64. I think, this way the code
isn't vulnerable to potential variability of "unsigned long long".
If we change to "unsigned long long" should we also change the kernel
to "unsigned long long"?