linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Stop making "inline" imply forced inlining.

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]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0701191228200.25140@CPE00045a9c397f-CM001225dbafb6>
Date:	Fri, 19 Jan 2007 12:39:37 -0500 (EST)
From:	"Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>
To:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>
cc:	Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	rth@...ddle.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Stop making "inline" imply forced inlining.

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 11:56:30AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >
> >   Remove the macros that define simple "inlining" to mean forced
> > inlining, since you can (and *should*) get that effect with the
> > CONFIG_FORCED_INLINING kernel config variable instead.
>
> NAK.
>
> I don't see any place in the kernel where we need a non-forced
> inline.

that's not the point.  the point is that, as it stands now, the build
is *broken* in three ways.

first, it's broken because declaring something simply as "inline"
*forces* it to be inlined, which flies in the face of historical
convention and is more than a little misleading.

second, it's broken because both the use of
"__attribute__((always_inline))" all over the place and the
CONFIG_FORCED_INLINING kernel config option imply that you indeed have
a choice, when you clearly *don't*.  quite simply, you can play with
that kernel config option or splash the "always_inline" attributes
around all you want and, unbeknownst to you, none of that is making
the *slightest* bit of difference.  that is the very *definition* of a
"broken" build.

and, finally, you claim that you "don't see any place in the kernel
where we need a non-forced inline."  i have already posted an alpha
header file that claims (rightly or wrongly) to need that freedom.
Q.E.D.

> We have tons of inline's in C files that should simply be removed -
> let's do this instead.

that may be a better idea, but it doesn't address the current
brokenness.

i'm willing to believe that this patch has zero chance of going
anywhere.  but if you want to reject it, at least be honest about it.
don't say, "there's no problem here."  instead, say, "yes, the build
is broken but we don't feel like doing anything about it."

rday
-
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/