linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH-next] init/main.c: make local symbol static

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:   Thu, 18 Jan 2018 15:35:04 -0800
From:   Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To:     Christopher Díaz Riveros <chrisadr@...too.org>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>, mingo@...nel.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
        keescook@...omium.org, lauraa@...eaurora.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        mhocko@...e.com, tal.shorer@...il.com, viresh.kumar@...aro.org,
        lokeshvutla@...com
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH-next] init/main.c: make local symbol static

On 01/18/2018 03:33 PM, Christopher Díaz Riveros wrote:
> El jue, 18-01-2018 a las 16:31 -0600, Tom Lendacky escribió:
>> On 1/18/2018 4:09 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>>> On 01/18/2018 02:06 PM, Christopher Díaz Riveros wrote:
>>>> Fixes the following sparse warning:
>>>>
>>>> init/main.c:167:12: warning:
>>>>   symbol 'envp_init' was not declared. Should it be static?
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Christopher Díaz Riveros <chrisadr@...too.org>
>>>
>>> Does the kernel build OK after this change?
>>>
> 
> I built it a couple of times before sending the patch, now I compiled
> it again and everything went ok.
> 
>>> What about the other user(s) of envp_init?
>>
>> It looks like it's referenced in init/do_mounts_initrd.c.  Rather
>> than making it static, it should be declared in .h file.
>>

init/Makefile should give you a clue.

> 
> Ok, I'll try to figure it out, akpm accepted the patch in mm-next but
> was dropped because of testing failures. I'm still very new to all of
> this process.


-- 
~Randy