* Byteorder conditional compilation problems
@ 2013-03-06 16:43 David Howells
2013-03-06 17:37 ` Linus Torvalds
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: David Howells @ 2013-03-06 16:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: torvalds, sfr, Joakim.Tjernlund, akpm
Cc: dhowells, linux-arch, arnd, linux-kernel
Hi Linus,
Looking at commit 13da9e200fe4740b02cd51e07ab454627e228920, I suspect the
answer will be no, but can we please revisit the use of __BYTE_ORDER in the
kernel?
The reason for this is that I've noticed a number of places in the UAPI
headers where __LITTLE_ENDIAN and __BIG_ENDIAN are assumed to act as in the
main kernel: they are tested for definedness, which is incorrect in UAPI
headers unless guarded by __KERNEL__. In UAPI headers, they _must_ be
compared to __BYTE_ORDER in !__KERNEL__ conditions and <endian.h> should
perhaps be #included as well.
The following headers are all incorrect in their usage in this manner:
include/uapi/linux/aio_abi.h - definition of PADDED()
include/uapi/linux/acct.h - definition of ACCT_BYTEORDER
include/uapi/linux/raid/md_p.h - order of members in mdp_superblock_s
arch/m32r/include/uapi/asm/stat.h - order of members in stat64
The last two are the most worrying as these are visible from userspace. Both
cases will likely use the __BIG_ENDIAN version in userspace (depending on
header inclusion ordering) - and it wouldn't surprise me if there's a nasty
bug in the RAID API that no one has spotted yet. M32R will likely have a
problem too if anyone uses that in LE mode (the default is "no" on that one,
though).
And then there are:
arch/arc/include/uapi/asm/byteorder.h - uses CONFIG_CPU_BIG_ENDIAN
arch/c6x/include/uapi/asm/byteorder.h - uses _BIG_ENDIAN
arch/c6x/include/uapi/asm/ptrace.h - uses _BIG_ENDIAN
arch/mips/include/uapi/asm/msgbuf.h - uses CONFIG_CPU_LITTLE_ENDIAN
which all look like they might be wrong.
And finally, there are:
include/{uapi/,}linux/patchkey.h - macro _PATCHKEY
include/{uapi/,}linux/soundcard.h - macro AFMT_S16_NE
which have two separate bits (one UAPI, one KAPI) defining the same macro in
the same way because the macro is endianness-dependent, but the logic to
select the variant cannot be shared between UAPI and KAPI.
The following:
include/uapi/sound/asound.h
include/uapi/sound/sfnt_info.h
seem to dodge the problem by using SNDRV_{LITTLE,BIG}_ENDIAN instead - though
this doesn't seem to be defined in any headers under /usr/include, so I
presume it is required to be set manually by anyone using those headers.
Whilst the following opinion:
The kernel has never had that crazy "__BYTE_ORDER == __LITTLE_ENDIAN"
model. It's not how we do things, and it isn't how we _should_ do
things. So don't go there.
may be a valid, it is incompatible with userspace. We cannot change how
userspace works, but we could change how the kernel works to match it, thus
reducing the confusion.
Looking at commit b3b77c8caef1750ebeea1054e39e358550ea9f55, I think the
problems with it are simple to resolve:
(1) linux/byteorder/big_endian.h didn't define __LITTLE_ENDIAN and
.../little_endian.h didn't define __BIG_ENDIAN. These should be placed
in a common header, and only __BYTE_ORDER defined in the separate
headers.
(2) Tests for the definedness of __BIG_ENDIAN and __LITTLE_ENDIAN must be
replaced en mass with comparisons against __BYTE_ORDER.
Sadly, (1) and (2) would have to be done in the same commit to avoid problems
since __BIG_ENDIAN and __LITTLE_ENDIAN must both be defined to for (1):-/
Throughout the whole kernel:
- There are 703 instances of "defined(__XXX_ENDIAN)" scattered over 68
files. None of these appear to be in comments.
- There are 6 instances of "def __XXX_ENDIAN[^_]" scattered over 4 files and
these are all in comments.
- There are a lot of "__XXX_ENDIAN__" - but these are not a problem.
Possibly these should be converted to "__XXX_ENDIAN" and the relevant -D
preprocessor flags removed.
- There are a lot of "__XXX_ENDIAN_BITFIELD" - which aren't a problem either.
Scripting a change from "defined(__XXX_ENDIAN)" to "(__XXX_ENDIAN==__BYTEORDER)"
should be easy to script.
David
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Byteorder conditional compilation problems
2013-03-06 16:43 Byteorder conditional compilation problems David Howells
@ 2013-03-06 17:37 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-03-07 7:17 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Linus Torvalds @ 2013-03-06 17:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Howells
Cc: Stephen Rothwell, Joakim.Tjernlund, Andrew Morton,
linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann,
Linux Kernel Mailing List
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 8:43 AM, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Scripting a change from "defined(__XXX_ENDIAN)" to "(__XXX_ENDIAN==__BYTEORDER)"
> should be easy to script.
How about we just make the rule be that we shouldn't test __xyz_ENDIAN
at all, and instead always use CONFIG_xyz_ENDIAN, which isn't
ambiguous. And then have the exporter of the uapi header files just
sed-script that into __xyz_ENDIAN == __BYTEORDER.
The whole __xyz_ENDIAN == __BYTE_ORDER syntax is moronic, and the
standard under BSD seems to be single-underscore "_BYTE_ORDER", while
glibc uses double underscore __BYTE_ORDER. The whole thing is a
f*cking mess, and I really don't want to get the idiotic mess into the
kernel any more than I have to.
In fact, I'd prefer to let it just be. Changing it in the kernel to
the idiotic and non-standard user mode format is pointless. Just fix
up the (few) entries in the uapi header files.
Linus
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Byteorder conditional compilation problems
2013-03-06 17:37 ` Linus Torvalds
@ 2013-03-07 7:17 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Geert Uytterhoeven @ 2013-03-07 7:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Torvalds
Cc: David Howells, Stephen Rothwell, Joakim.Tjernlund, Andrew Morton,
linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann,
Linux Kernel Mailing List
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 6:37 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 8:43 AM, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> wrote:
>> Scripting a change from "defined(__XXX_ENDIAN)" to "(__XXX_ENDIAN==__BYTEORDER)"
>> should be easy to script.
>
> How about we just make the rule be that we shouldn't test __xyz_ENDIAN
> at all, and instead always use CONFIG_xyz_ENDIAN, which isn't
> ambiguous. And then have the exporter of the uapi header files just
> sed-script that into __xyz_ENDIAN == __BYTEORDER.
I was going to suggest a checkpatch test, but your suggestion is a
better solution.
Still, we may want the checkpatch test, to make sure no one explicitly does the
moronic byte order check.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-03-07 7:17 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2013-03-06 16:43 Byteorder conditional compilation problems David Howells
2013-03-06 17:37 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-03-07 7:17 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
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).