linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 52/58] x86: vdso: Add prototypes for __vdso

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:	Mon, 19 Nov 2012 12:37:16 -0800
From:	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 52/58] x86: vdso: Add prototypes for __vdso_* functions

On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 12:04:23PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 9:28 PM, Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org> wrote:
> > arch/x86/vdso/vclock_gettime.c and arch/x86/vdso/vgetcpu.c define
> > several functions prefixed by __vdso_*, used in the alias definitions
> > for the actual vdso symbols calls.  Add prototypes of these functions
> > right before their definitions, to satisfy gcc (-Wmissing-prototypes)
> > and Sparse (-Wdecl).
> >
> > arch/x86/vdso/vclock_gettime.c:161:45: warning: no previous prototype for ‘__vdso_clock_gettime’ [-Wmissing-prototypes]
> > arch/x86/vdso/vclock_gettime.c:185:45: warning: no previous prototype for ‘__vdso_gettimeofday’ [-Wmissing-prototypes]
> > arch/x86/vdso/vclock_gettime.c:213:48: warning: no previous prototype for ‘__vdso_time’ [-Wmissing-prototypes]
> > arch/x86/vdso/vgetcpu.c:16:1: warning: no previous prototype for ‘__vdso_getcpu’ [-Wmissing-prototypes]
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
> > ---
> >  arch/x86/vdso/vclock_gettime.c |    3 +++
> >  arch/x86/vdso/vgetcpu.c        |    2 ++
> >  2 files changed, 5 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/vdso/vclock_gettime.c b/arch/x86/vdso/vclock_gettime.c
> > index 4df6c37..bc8b276 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/vdso/vclock_gettime.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/vdso/vclock_gettime.c
> > @@ -158,6 +158,7 @@ notrace static int do_monotonic_coarse(struct timespec *ts)
> >         return 0;
> >  }
> >
> > +int __vdso_clock_gettime(clockid_t clock, struct timespec *ts);
> >  notrace int __vdso_clock_gettime(clockid_t clock, struct timespec *ts)
> >  {
> >         int ret = VCLOCK_NONE;
> > @@ -182,6 +183,7 @@ notrace int __vdso_clock_gettime(clockid_t clock, struct timespec *ts)
> >  int clock_gettime(clockid_t, struct timespec *)
> >         __attribute__((weak, alias("__vdso_clock_gettime")));
> >
> > +int __vdso_gettimeofday(struct timeval *tv, struct timezone *tz);
> >  notrace int __vdso_gettimeofday(struct timeval *tv, struct timezone *tz)
> >  {
> >         long ret = VCLOCK_NONE;
> > @@ -210,6 +212,7 @@ int gettimeofday(struct timeval *, struct timezone *)
> >   * This will break when the xtime seconds get inaccurate, but that is
> >   * unlikely
> >   */
> > +time_t __vdso_time(time_t *t);
> >  notrace time_t __vdso_time(time_t *t)
> >  {
> >         /* This is atomic on x86_64 so we don't need any locks. */
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/vdso/vgetcpu.c b/arch/x86/vdso/vgetcpu.c
> > index 5463ad5..b55350f 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/vdso/vgetcpu.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/vdso/vgetcpu.c
> > @@ -12,6 +12,8 @@
> >  #include <asm/vsyscall.h>
> >  #include <asm/vgtod.h>
> >
> > +long __vdso_getcpu(unsigned *cpu, unsigned *node, struct getcpu_cache *unused);
> > +
> >  notrace long
> >  __vdso_getcpu(unsigned *cpu, unsigned *node, struct getcpu_cache *unused)
> >  {
> > --
> > 1.7.10.4
> >
> 
> Acked-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
> 
> In theory, this could go in arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/vdso.h.  No one
> cares, I suspect, since there exactly two non-test-case users that I
> know of.

If you think it makes sense to put the VDSO prototypes in that UAPI
header, I could prepare an alternate patch that does so.

- Josh Triplett
--
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/