kernel-hardening - Re: [PATCH V2] include: linux: Regularise the use of FIELD

Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAOfkYf5_HTN1HO0gQY9iGchK5Anf6oVx7knzMhL1hWpv4gV20Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 02:57:58 +0530
From: Shyam Saini <mayhs11saini@...il.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>, Shyam Saini <shyam.saini@...rulasolutions.com>, 
	Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, 
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, 
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, 
	intel-gvt-dev@...ts.freedesktop.org, intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, 
	dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>, 
	Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>, 
	devel@...ts.orangefs.org, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org, 
	bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org, 
	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] include: linux: Regularise the use of FIELD_SIZEOF macro

Hi Andrew,

>
> On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 15:00:10 -0600 Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca> wrote:
>
> > >> to FIELD_SIZEOF
> > >
> > > As Alexey has pointed out, C structs and unions don't have fields -
> > > they have members.  So this is an opportunity to switch everything to
> > > a new member_sizeof().
> > >
> > > What do people think of that and how does this impact the patch footprint?
> >
> > I did a check, and FIELD_SIZEOF() is used about 350x, while sizeof_field()
> > is about 30x, and SIZEOF_FIELD() is only about 5x.
>
> Erk.  Sorry, I should have grepped.
>
> > That said, I'm much more in favour of "sizeof_field()" or "sizeof_member()"
> > than FIELD_SIZEOF().  Not only does that better match "offsetof()", with
> > which it is closely related, but is also closer to the original "sizeof()".
> >
> > Since this is a rather trivial change, it can be split into a number of
> > patches to get approval/landing via subsystem maintainers, and there is no
> > huge urgency to remove the original macros until the users are gone.  It
> > would make sense to remove SIZEOF_FIELD() and sizeof_field() quickly so
> > they don't gain more users, and the remaining FIELD_SIZEOF() users can be
> > whittled away as the patches come through the maintainer trees.
>
> In that case I'd say let's live with FIELD_SIZEOF() and remove
> sizeof_field() and SIZEOF_FIELD().
>
> I'm a bit surprised that the FIELD_SIZEOF() definition ends up in
> stddef.h rather than in kernel.h where such things are normally
> defined.  Why is that?

Thanks for pointing out this, I was not aware if this is a convention.
Anyway, I'll keep FIELD_SIZEOF definition in kernel.h in next version.

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.