linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] FDPIC: add hook for arches to customize program header parsing

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:04:02 -0400
From:	Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@...il.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jie Zhang <jie.zhang@...log.com>,
	Bernd Schmidt <bernds_cb1@...nline.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] FDPIC: add hook for arches to customize program header 
	parsing

On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 01:32, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 04:24:48 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> From: Jie Zhang <jie.zhang@...log.com>
>> The Blackfin port has custom program header flags/addresses for
>> automatically loading regions into the dedicated on-chip SRAM.  So add a
>> hook for ports to leverage.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jie Zhang <jie.zhang@...log.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>
>> CC: Bernd Schmidt <bernds_cb1@...nline.de>
>> Acked-by: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
>> Acked-by: Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>
>> Acked-by: Greg Ungerer <gerg@...inux.org>
>> ---
>> Andrew: could you pick this up ?  same patch as before, just with the
>> additional tags added.
>
> I suppose we want to squeeze this into 2.6.31.

would be nice, but not terribly critical

>> --- a/fs/binfmt_elf_fdpic.c
>> +++ b/fs/binfmt_elf_fdpic.c
>> @@ -1105,6 +1105,13 @@ static int elf_fdpic_map_file_by_direct_mmap(struct elf_fdpic_params *params,
>>                   ELF_FDPIC_FLAG_CONTIGUOUS)
>>                       load_addr += PAGE_ALIGN(phdr->p_memsz + disp);
>>
>> +#ifndef ELF_FDPIC_PLAT_PROCESS_PHDR
>> +# define ELF_FDPIC_PLAT_PROCESS_PHDR(mm, params, phdr, maddr, disp) 0
>> +#endif
>> +             ret = ELF_FDPIC_PLAT_PROCESS_PHDR(mm, params, phdr, &maddr, &disp);
>> +             if (ret)
>> +                     return ret;
>> +
>
> Wouldn't it be simpler to do
>
> #ifdef ELF_FDPIC_PLAT_PROCESS_PHDR
>                ret = ELF_FDPIC_PLAT_PROCESS_PHDR(mm, params, phdr, &maddr,
>                                                  &disp);
>                if (ret)
>                        return ret;
> #endif
>
> ?
>
> If there's any prospect that we'll use ELF_FDPIC_PLAT_PROCESS_PHDR() a
> second time from within this file then yes, adding a definition as
> you did is appropriate.  But it should be near the top of the file, not
> stuck stupidly in the middle of a C function.

the purpose was to stick to current conventions used in the file and
to maximize the amount of code compiled.  i dont particularly care wrt
the method used here.
-mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/