linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 01/22] Generic show

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:	Sat, 5 Apr 2008 09:51:08 +0200
From:	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
To:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...urebad.de>
Cc:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, mingo@...e.hu, davem@...emloft.net,
	hskinnemoen@...el.com, cooloney@...nel.org, starvik@...s.com,
	dhowells@...hat.com, ysato@...rs.sf.net, takata@...ux-m32r.org,
	geert@...ux-m68k.org, ralf@...ux-mips.org, kyle@...isc-linux.org,
	paulus@...ba.org, schwidefsky@...ibm.com, lethal@...ux-sh.org,
	jdike@...toit.com, miles@....org, chris@...kel.net,
	rmk@....linux.org.uk, tony.luck@...el.com
Subject: Re: [RFC 01/22] Generic show_mem() implementation

> >> I can not follow you.  Of course the arch selects what they use.  But
> >> they should not _all_ have to be flagged with an extra select.  So what
> >> default-value are you arguing for?
> > The normal pattern is to let arch select the generic implmentation they
> > use.
> > Just because the majority does use the generic version should not
> > make us start to use the inverse logic as in your case.
> >
> > So I want all archs that uses the generic show_mem() to
> > do an explicit:
> >
> > config MYARCH
> > 	select HAVE_GENERIC_SHOWMEM
> >
> > 	Sam
> 
> What is the rationale behind this?  It is not a function the arch should
> select at all because it is VM code.  The remaining arch-specific
> versions are meant to be removed too.
> 
> It would be like forcing all architectures to select HAVE_GENERIC_PRINTK
> just because one architecture oopses on printk() and needs to replace it
> with its own version.

Positive logic and consistency with the CONFIG_HAVE_WHATEVER is the reason.

But you can solve this problem with no ifdefs and config options at all,
since you may as well just use __attribute__((weak)) for the generic
implementation.
--
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/