linux-kernel - Re: STT_FUNC for assembler checksum and semaphore ops" in git-x86

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: <20080111025734.GA6908@one.firstfloor.org>
Date:	Fri, 11 Jan 2008 03:57:34 +0100
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	John Reiser <jreiser@...Wagon.com>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, mingo@...e.hu,
	Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>, Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
	tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: STT_FUNC for assembler checksum and semaphore ops" in git-x86

On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 04:59:52PM -0800, John Reiser wrote:
> Andi Kleen wrote:
> > But actually checking the default implementation in linkage.h already
> > implements size: [snip]
> 
> > Are you sure it doesn't work?  Your patch should be not needed. If it's
> > still wrong then just ENDPROCs() need to be added.
> 
> The ENDPROCs() were not used everywhere.  Some code used just END() instead,
> while other code used nothing.  um/sys-i386/checksum.S didn't #include

END() is fine too since it contains .size too:

#ifndef END
#define END(name) \
  .size name, .-name
#endif

> diff --git a/arch/x86/lib/semaphore_32.S b/arch/x86/lib/semaphore_32.S
> index 444fba4..e2c6e0d 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/lib/semaphore_32.S
> +++ b/arch/x86/lib/semaphore_32.S
> @@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ ENTRY(__down_failed)
>  	ENDFRAME
>  	ret
>  	CFI_ENDPROC
> -	END(__down_failed)
> +	ENDPROC(__down_failed)

I don't think these change makes sense given the definition of END()
shown above.

The only change that would make sense is adding END() (or ENDPROC()) 
to a function that doesn't have either of them yet.

Since you seem to do nop changes something is wrong with your
testing procedure?

-Andi
--
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/