[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <878s5hu5mx.ffs@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2021 02:16:54 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>, x86@...nel.org
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>,
linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com,
Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/15] static_call: Use global functions for the self-test
On Fri, Apr 16 2021 at 23:37, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 16 2021 at 13:38, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
>> #ifdef CONFIG_STATIC_CALL_SELFTEST
>>
>> -static int func_a(int x)
>> +int func_a(int x)
>> {
>> return x+1;
>> }
>>
>> -static int func_b(int x)
>> +int func_b(int x)
>> {
>> return x+2;
>> }
>
> Did you even compile that?
>
> Global functions without a prototype are generating warnings, but we can
> ignore them just because of sekurity, right?
>
> Aside of that polluting the global namespace with func_a/b just to work
> around a tool shortcoming is beyond hillarious.
>
> Fix the tool not the perfectly correct code.
That said, I wouldn't mind a __dont_dare_to_rename annotation to help
the compiler, but anything else is just wrong.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists