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=-0.8 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,URIBL_BLOCKED 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 952BBC4360C for ; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 20:57:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64470207E0 for ; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 20:57:01 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=chromium.org header.i=@chromium.org header.b="JLBkYEn3" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728897AbfIZU5A (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Sep 2019 16:57:00 -0400 Received: from mail-pg1-f174.google.com ([209.85.215.174]:38317 "EHLO mail-pg1-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728869AbfIZU5A (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Sep 2019 16:57:00 -0400 Received: by mail-pg1-f174.google.com with SMTP id x10so2190982pgi.5 for ; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 13:56:58 -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=tqUJyFYR+MClyCsKadz5ZXTJMm7LM8Rd2AfAh/NUg9c=; b=JLBkYEn3gTupmMGajMZySkfyndxcsQNhtiFFe6XehJOcsaZ/9r8aKnqZG+JmvqnfiD oQKVFcz6+nhFMUU+QKFsGy7MmxWH/qS1Sg3LRu6MaFnzj+ytDTxv/BmDRp6K7F5pE1Qo sfQ0BrbxxFDGGjJK3K+5Prk77bYaCwDMPKTe4= 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=tqUJyFYR+MClyCsKadz5ZXTJMm7LM8Rd2AfAh/NUg9c=; b=FkHibA1d8Zuy4Mg37zIMykYydscjn/fWrvwiMGXukCzGHpzO7MAWEmrvokHoD4OGx4 RaEPtQNyIK886M62dWkFFcgIQA3In68LUMfgqGTXpHsSAm+Mr8sfv2Fa7jnWfmeiKPV9 wxNDpav03xzdUUrQ8IcIdvQsYZxeoqnD+K3mif+C254MvKmlG2aYEsXY+aOXG5DcWANb 4X4QykAHug2vxeySNrKIA5srg/NZk1Drb0X8pLhqq9xYfiOO8WsRpU7qT19TlDdBqcM+ TArFK3h9sTDpxxyyTNKqm7yO1uingqfAEuc2OBRe2J8ZIHpPZ3h4K2iCUM2+F45a/ISq V5lA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWaiewGXu52RZdC01dLUBX35DEE4oEHszFJ3/gJsE4e22sM2Mtn /ciO2+imj4AgbhS21nFTSe16/naXbNc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwK7jUdBK7tKCjMiZG7L/ivCuIY2uGk8FRGvRgmFkL0mDFYA5Bven6QmEobIxDMh4Z+NKTA6w== X-Received: by 2002:a65:404b:: with SMTP id h11mr5406413pgp.237.1569531417922; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 13:56:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from www.outflux.net (smtp.outflux.net. [198.145.64.163]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k8sm2734650pgm.14.2019.09.26.13.56.56 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 26 Sep 2019 13:56:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2019 13:56:55 -0700 From: Kees Cook To: Linus Torvalds , "David S. Miller" Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , Pankaj Bharadiya , Joe Perches , Alexey Dobriyan Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] treewide conversion to sizeof_member() for v5.4-rc1 Message-ID: <201909261347.3F04AFA0@keescook> References: <201909261026.6E3381876C@keescook> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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())? -- Kees Cook