From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16FD6C433E1 for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2020 23:31:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAEF32081A for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2020 23:31:49 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=hansenpartnership.com header.i=@hansenpartnership.com header.b="uHylQH0y"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=hansenpartnership.com header.i=@hansenpartnership.com header.b="uHylQH0y" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1725767AbgFYXbq (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Jun 2020 19:31:46 -0400 Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com ([66.63.167.143]:43730 "EHLO bedivere.hansenpartnership.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725554AbgFYXbq (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Jun 2020 19:31:46 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E43448EE2F6; Thu, 25 Jun 2020 16:31:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=hansenpartnership.com; s=20151216; t=1593127904; bh=3t2rEmrXunzbuoRIHJIfGmnQexOBzUIBYGc01ozpYJQ=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=uHylQH0yQbxU0l7k9WCjEDc9QURr3VnCrOBLZ3jdZf96C4DzQ1Q3djOdmatw+EU4C VeSmPX7KP1V/FxEMUwDEEvmTAOiD0urCQdMX1IuZdo6pVBWA3fXEJFmF+YJ6x+Kwif hVPS7qHrQJyfk4K69CbssfaIBbGiQjjEMOCwfG28= Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (bedivere.hansenpartnership.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C9twK_fggstL; Thu, 25 Jun 2020 16:31:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [153.66.254.194] (unknown [50.35.76.230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7FAAB8EE079; Thu, 25 Jun 2020 16:31:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=hansenpartnership.com; s=20151216; t=1593127904; bh=3t2rEmrXunzbuoRIHJIfGmnQexOBzUIBYGc01ozpYJQ=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=uHylQH0yQbxU0l7k9WCjEDc9QURr3VnCrOBLZ3jdZf96C4DzQ1Q3djOdmatw+EU4C VeSmPX7KP1V/FxEMUwDEEvmTAOiD0urCQdMX1IuZdo6pVBWA3fXEJFmF+YJ6x+Kwif hVPS7qHrQJyfk4K69CbssfaIBbGiQjjEMOCwfG28= Message-ID: <1593127902.13253.11.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Subject: Re: [Tee-dev] [PATCHv8 1/3] optee: use uuid for sysfs driver entry From: James Bottomley To: Sumit Garg Cc: Jerome Forissier , Maxim Uvarov , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Jarkko Sakkinen , Arnd Bergmann , "tee-dev @ lists . linaro . org" , Jason Gunthorpe , linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, peterhuewe@gmx.de Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2020 16:31:42 -0700 In-Reply-To: References: <20200604175851.758-1-maxim.uvarov@linaro.org> <20200604175851.758-2-maxim.uvarov@linaro.org> <1592507935.15159.5.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1592578844.4369.5.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1593012069.28403.11.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.26.6 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-integrity-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2020-06-25 at 19:54 +0530, Sumit Garg wrote: > On Wed, 24 Jun 2020 at 20:51, James Bottomley > wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2020-06-24 at 16:17 +0530, Sumit Garg wrote: > > > Apologies for delay in my reply as I was busy with some other > > > stuff. > > > > > > On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 at 20:30, James Bottomley > > > wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > it's about consistency with what the kernel types mean. When > > > > some checker detects your using little endian operations on a > > > > big endian structure (like in the prink for instance) they're > > > > going to keep emailing you about it. > > > > > > As mentioned above, using different terminology is meant to cause > > > more confusion than just difference in endianness which is > > > manageable inside TEE. > > > > > > And I think it's safe to say that the kernel implements UUID in > > > big endian format and thus uses %pUb whereas OP-TEE implements > > > UUID in little endian format and thus uses %pUl. > > > > So what I think you're saying is that if we still had uuid_be and > > uuid_le you'd use uuid_le, because that's exactly the structure > > described in the docs. But because we renamed > > > > uuid_be -> uuid_t > > uuid_le -> guid_t > > > > You can't use guid_t as a kernel type because it has the wrong > > name? > > Isn't the rename commit description [1] pretty clear about which is > the true UUID type from Linux point of view? I don't think the kernel code takes a position on eternal verity, just on logical or arithmetic truth. We just have to deal with both LE and BE UUIDs so we have appropriate types for them and the LE type is now named guid_t. They're both equally correct to use provided the use case matches the designed one. So does the name really matter? If we did #define uuid_le_t guid_t would you be happy? (not that the kernel cares about karmic emotional states either ...) James