Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 26 Sep 2019 13:56:55 -0700 | From | Kees Cook <> | Subject | Re: [GIT PULL] treewide conversion to sizeof_member() for v5.4-rc1 |
| |
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
| |