linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] pop previous section in alternative.c

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.4.58.0804101007510.5673@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date:	Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:11:30 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>
cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, akpm@...l.org,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Glauber de Oliveira Costa <gcosta@...hat.com>,
	Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, pinskia@....gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pop previous section in alternative.c



On Thu, 10 Apr 2008, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> >
> > BTW it looks like the problem was added with 121d7bf5a246d282ba91234d03a4edf9ccc9c940,
> > signed off by me, sorry for not catching it in review.
> >
> > Perhaps that is something that would make sense adding to checkpatch.pl?
> > Complain for .section in inline assembler without .previous or popsection
> > (cc Andy). I think such a check would make sense.
>
> Do you have an example of such a bad thing?  My only concern is this
> sounds like a check which could potentially need to see more lines than are
> available in the patch context and so the test might be rather unreliable.
>

>From commit 121d7bf5a246d282ba91234d03a4edf9ccc9c940:

    get them easily into strings. */
-asm("\t.data\nintelnops: "
+asm("\t.section .rodata, \"a\"\nintelnops: "
        GENERIC_NOP1 GENERIC_NOP2 GENERIC_NOP3 GENERIC_NOP4 GENERIC_NOP5 GENERIC
        GENERIC_NOP7 GENERIC_NOP8);
-extern unsigned char intelnops[];


I would say anytime there's a "^+.*\.section" there had better be a
"^-.*\.section" or a "+.*.previous" matching it. Off hand I can't think of
any exceptions to this rule although I may be wrong.

-- Steve


--
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/