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=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS 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 543C1C10F14 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 18:19:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32F1C218DE for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 18:19:22 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=chromium.org header.i=@chromium.org header.b="KS8XHwld" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728803AbfJBSTT (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Oct 2019 14:19:19 -0400 Received: from mail-pl1-f194.google.com ([209.85.214.194]:33271 "EHLO mail-pl1-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728763AbfJBSTT (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Oct 2019 14:19:19 -0400 Received: by mail-pl1-f194.google.com with SMTP id d22so125221pls.0 for ; Wed, 02 Oct 2019 11:19:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=1pSxC96cp63O/uKBhjxXAYKtXILwpdL5DptqGzoFDRc=; b=KS8XHwldUbXMCwU/wt18G2OK3lA/p6SmJW4QaclaJxjcf0kt6fXXEoTLQ+OgfR6T2A 6K9i/mQZGEZzIvyz6aVNi0kWIKEllGe8QZtNbxxUitZVjztRbtWJYb2D/h4Es4jvSrcA ZIhiPvb34WPJKOp/OrihvBZtGcfdrRQ933q94= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=1pSxC96cp63O/uKBhjxXAYKtXILwpdL5DptqGzoFDRc=; b=QPOryJ/ZsoXPzmnbtu1iTZpG42NXt7pyV/lUXDuLbkTcOXhvoRAJWlUSVrUwi4B24v ZYyOeQ+jXZvGBKlzTezF5rd14JiU3Jr96AW4yEEa/yP8fk41YtY+Jg4nyHMZHlyhnkqd NoUM6Gx7pmXjXIre1+jKLeUOCGW8O2xJ+AgM3gzkZwcJ0df2d0Q6ZX3+0Nhf0P2GR9TQ KbEeIHMc74QmnvKuaPhcncKJgT38z6718yfJi3BJgsRhbM22qyAvHt2X3fUH64AWvDUm W8pFw3n8g4PXnRkXIxUGwZ/X9usIQOwrazd7PHlLQnNhj+HMX8vKHjl4TFFQg+RdxwaO kIgw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWNfNuXX8reEslrpNRafKWDnHQLQ+wqkR94dfyJB99ICmbUMBnz Yv3g5K6BKVRZGGBbtq7hPjJjMA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyoCE1WFuTiE+G81nuaYtNBUeF3ahHA12Odrg2xFman2LZ5fF0xrMGJRhkd5R2IcaOjmlK/wQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:aa95:: with SMTP id d21mr5113730plr.48.1570040358638; Wed, 02 Oct 2019 11:19:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from www.outflux.net (smtp.outflux.net. [198.145.64.163]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c8sm132622pfi.117.2019.10.02.11.19.17 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 02 Oct 2019 11:19:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2019 11:19:16 -0700 From: Kees Cook To: David Miller Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , Pankaj Bharadiya , Joe Perches , Alexey Dobriyan , netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: renaming FIELD_SIZEOF to sizeof_member (was Re: [GIT PULL] treewide conversion to sizeof_member() for v5.4-rc1) Message-ID: <201910021115.9888E9B@keescook> References: <201909261026.6E3381876C@keescook> <201909261347.3F04AFA0@keescook> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201909261347.3F04AFA0@keescook> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org 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