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, 04 Sep 2017 04:15:24 -0600
From:   "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...e.com>
To:     "Nicolas Iooss" <nicolas.iooss_linux@....org>,
        "Boris Ostrovsky" <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        "Juergen Gross" <jgross@...e.com>
Cc:     <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/1] x86/xen: fix section of
 xen_init_time_ops() in header

>>> On 04.09.17 at 10:17, <jgross@...e.com> wrote:
> On 03/09/17 10:38, Nicolas Iooss wrote:
>> Commit d162809f85b4 ("xen/x86: Do not call xen_init_time_ops() until
>> shared_info is initialized") moved xen_init_time_ops() from __init to
>> __ref without updating xen-ops.h accordingly. Fix this.
>> 
>> Fixes: d162809f85b4 ("xen/x86: Do not call xen_init_time_ops() until
>> shared_info is initialized")
>> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Iooss <nicolas.iooss_linux@....org>
>> ---
>>  arch/x86/xen/xen-ops.h | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/xen/xen-ops.h b/arch/x86/xen/xen-ops.h
>> index 0d5004477db6..b2a5d48a2c2a 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/xen/xen-ops.h
>> +++ b/arch/x86/xen/xen-ops.h
>> @@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ void xen_setup_runstate_info(int cpu);
>>  void xen_teardown_timer(int cpu);
>>  u64 xen_clocksource_read(void);
>>  void xen_setup_cpu_clockevents(void);
>> -void __init xen_init_time_ops(void);
>> +void __ref xen_init_time_ops(void);
>>  void __init xen_hvm_init_time_ops(void);
> 
> When correcting this could you please modify the prototypes to comply to
> the intended form as noted in include/linux/init.h (the __ref or __init
> annotations should be just before the ending semicolon)?

Why would these annotations be kept on the declarations anyway?
Attributes affecting code/data placement generally belong on the
definitions only.

I also question the suggested placement, despite init.h saying so.

Jan

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ