[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <642f4dab.170a0220.97691.39c9@mx.google.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2023 15:54:35 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Cc: linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>,
Cezary Rojewski <cezary.rojewski@...el.com>,
Puyou Lu <puyou.lu@...il.com>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Brendan Higgins <brendan.higgins@...ux.dev>,
David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.huang@...soc.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Liam Howlett <liam.howlett@...cle.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>,
"Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
Sander Vanheule <sander@...nheule.net>,
Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>,
"Masami Hiramatsu (Google)" <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...il.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>,
José Expósito <jose.exposito89@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] fortify: Split reporting and avoid passing string
pointer
On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 03:44:54PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 2:02 AM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> >
> > +void __fortify_report(u8 reason);
> > +void __fortify_panic(u8 reason) __cold __noreturn;
>
> (snip)
>
> > +void __fortify_report(u8 reason)
>
> (snip)
>
> > +void __fortify_panic(const u8 reason)
>
> I am curious: for some reason (no pun intended :) the `reason`s above
> are not `const` except this one, but then in a later patch they become
> `const` (including the declarations).
>
> So perhaps make everything `const` when they are introduced? Or is
> there some other reason? (e.g. I saw one patch that moved a function,
> so there it seemed to make sense to keep things as they are to make
> the copy 1:1).
I will adjust it -- this was an artifact of splitting up my patches.
Thanks!
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists