* renaming FIELD_SIZEOF to sizeof_member (was Re: [GIT PULL] treewide conversion to sizeof_member() for v5.4-rc1) [not found] ` <201909261347.3F04AFA0@keescook> @ 2019-10-02 18:19 ` Kees Cook 2019-10-02 20:21 ` renaming FIELD_SIZEOF to sizeof_member David Miller 0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread From: Kees Cook @ 2019-10-02 18:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Miller Cc: linux-kernel, Linus Torvalds, Pankaj Bharadiya, Joe Perches, Alexey Dobriyan, netdev 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: renaming FIELD_SIZEOF to sizeof_member 2019-10-02 18:19 ` renaming FIELD_SIZEOF to sizeof_member (was Re: [GIT PULL] treewide conversion to sizeof_member() for v5.4-rc1) Kees Cook @ 2019-10-02 20:21 ` David Miller 2019-10-02 20:53 ` Kees Cook 0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread From: David Miller @ 2019-10-02 20:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: keescook Cc: linux-kernel, torvalds, pankaj.laxminarayan.bharadiya, joe, adobriyan, netdev From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2019 11:19:16 -0700 > 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? I have no objection to moving to sizeof_member(). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: renaming FIELD_SIZEOF to sizeof_member 2019-10-02 20:21 ` renaming FIELD_SIZEOF to sizeof_member David Miller @ 2019-10-02 20:53 ` Kees Cook 0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread From: Kees Cook @ 2019-10-02 20:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: torvalds Cc: linux-kernel, pankaj.laxminarayan.bharadiya, joe, adobriyan, netdev, David Miller On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 01:21:21PM -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> > Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2019 11:19:16 -0700 > > > 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? > > I have no objection to moving to sizeof_member(). Great; thank you! Linus, are you still open to taking this series with Dave's buy-in? I'd really hate to break it up since it's such a mechanical treewide change. I'm also happy to wait until the next -rc1 window; whatever you think is best here. Thanks! -- Kees Cook ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-10-02 20:53 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <201909261026.6E3381876C@keescook>
[not found] ` <CAHk-=wg8+eNK+SK1Ekqm0qNQHVM6e6YOdZx3yhsX6Ajo3gEupg@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <201909261347.3F04AFA0@keescook>
2019-10-02 18:19 ` renaming FIELD_SIZEOF to sizeof_member (was Re: [GIT PULL] treewide conversion to sizeof_member() for v5.4-rc1) Kees Cook
2019-10-02 20:21 ` renaming FIELD_SIZEOF to sizeof_member David Miller
2019-10-02 20:53 ` Kees Cook
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).