On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 12:54:18PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: > On 27/07/2021 22.57, Kees Cook wrote: > > > In order to have a regular programmatic way to describe a struct > > region that can be used for references and sizing, can be examined for > > bounds checking, avoids forcing the use of intermediate identifiers, > > and avoids polluting the global namespace, introduce the struct_group() > > macro. This macro wraps the member declarations to create an anonymous > > union of an anonymous struct (no intermediate name) and a named struct > > (for references and sizing): > > > > struct foo { > > int one; > > struct_group(thing, > > int two, > > int three, > > ); > > int four; > > }; > > That example won't compile, the commas after two and three should be > semicolons. Oops, yes, thanks. This is why I shouldn't write code that doesn't first go through a compiler. ;) > And your implementation relies on MEMBERS not containing any comma > tokens, but as > > int a, b, c, d; > > is a valid way to declare multiple members, consider making MEMBERS > variadic > > #define struct_group(NAME, MEMBERS...) > > to have it slurp up every subsequent argument and make that work. Ah! Perfect, thank you. I totally forgot I could do it that way. > > > > > Co-developed-by: Keith Packard <keithpac@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Keith Packard <keithpac@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > include/linux/stddef.h | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Bikeshedding a bit, but do we need to add 34 lines that need to be > preprocessed to virtually each and every translation unit [as opposed to > adding a struct_group.h header]? Oh well, you need it for struct > skbuff.h, so it would be pulled in by a lot regardless :( My instinct is to make these kinds of helpers "always available" (like sizeof_field(), etc), but I have no strong opinion on where it should live. If the consensus is to move it, I certainly can! :) -Kees -- Kees Cook