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: <1229599844.16633.1290718265@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Date:	Thu, 18 Dec 2008 12:30:44 +0100
From:	"Alexander van Heukelum" <heukelum@...tmail.fm>
To:	"Russell King" <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	"Sam Ravnborg" <sam@...nborg.org>,
	"Cyrill Gorcunov" <gorcunov@...il.com>,
	"Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@...ell.com>, 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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/many] PROC macro to annotate functions in assembly files

On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 10:07:47 +0000, "Russell King"
<rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk> said:
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 10:51:58AM +0100, Alexander van Heukelum wrote:
> > Agreed. I vote to complement the existing ENDPROC annotation with
> > the proposed PROC annotation. Let's call that an extension, not
> > something new ;). As it stands it is not impossible to go with
> > ENTRY/ENDPROC for code and ENTRY/END for data. However, ENTRY
> > implies alignment and the prefered alignment for code and data
> > might differ.
> 
> Have you looked at the number of ENTRY uses for code vs for data?
> If all you're after is separating the two uses, then it might be a
> smaller patch to change the ENTRY use for data rather than changing
> all the ENTRY uses for code.
> 
> There are 589 uses of ENTRY in arch/arm/*/*.S.  Of those about 50
> aren't called code.

Hi,

Things are similar for x86, but I didn't consider it a problem.

The alternative I see is to is to introduce DATAENTRY and DATAEND
for use with data objects in generic code, equal to ENTRY/END. Then
deprecate the use of ENDPROC, so we can try to get rid of it in the
long run.

Minor nit is that all archs need to override ENTRY and/or END to
include an assembly directive that indicates that the symbol is
a function. Changing this in generic code is not possible as long
as there are ARCHs which have not been converted.

ENDPROC might stick for a very long time, though.

Greetings,
    Alexander

> -- 
> Russell King
>  Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
>  maintainer of:
-- 
  Alexander van Heukelum
  heukelum@...tmail.fm

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - A fast, anti-spam email service.

--
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/