linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/many] PROC macro to annotate functions in assembly files

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: <20081217172640.GB5436@uranus.ravnborg.org>
Date:	Wed, 17 Dec 2008 18:26:40 +0100
From:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
To:	Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...tmail.fm>
Cc:	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...lshack.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/many] PROC macro to annotate functions in assembly files

On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 10:17:54AM +0100, Alexander van Heukelum wrote:
> Introduce the PROC macro in the generic header file
> include/linux/linkage.h to annotate functions in assembly
> files. This is a first step to fully annotate functions
> (procedures) in .S-files. The PROC macro complements the
> already existing and being used ENDPROC macro. The generic
> implementation of PROC is exactly the same as ENTRY.
> 
> The goal is to annotate functions, at least those called
> from C code, with PROC at the beginning and ENDPROC at the
> end. This is for the benefit of debugging and tracing. It
> will also allow to introduce a framework to check for
> nesting problems and missing annotations in a later stage
> by overriding ENTRY/END and PROC/ENDPROC in architecture-
> specific code, after the annotation errors have been fixed.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...tmail.fm>
> Cc: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>

I understand where you are coming from with these.
But what I see now is:

ENTRY/END
PROC/ENDPROC
KPROBE_ENTRY/KPROBE_END

And it is not obvious for me reading the comment when I should
expect which one to be used.

Could we try to keep it down to two variants?
And then document when to use which one.

	Sam
--
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/