linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND] Ensure that kernel_init_freeable() is not inlined into non _

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <50DA837A.6040301@synopsys.com>
Date:	Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:26:26 +0530
From:	Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
CC:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] Ensure that kernel_init_freeable() is not inlined
 into non __init code

On Friday 21 December 2012 12:53 PM, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> On Friday 21 December 2012 12:50 PM, Al Viro wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 12:25:44PM +0530, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>>> Commit d6b2123802d "make sure that we always have a return path from
>>> kernel_execve()" reshuffled kernel_init()/init_post() to ensure that
>>> kernel_execve() has a caller to return to.
>>>
>>> It removed __init annotation for kernel_init() and introduced/calls a
>>> new routine kernel_init_freeable(). Latter however is inlined by any
>>> reasonable compiler (ARC gcc 4.4 in this case), causing slight code
>>> bloat.
>> Interesting...  I assumed that explicitly set different section would be
>> enough, but I'd been wrong (or the original noinline would've been pointless,
>> now that I think of it).  Consider it ACKed; I can pick it through signal.git,
>> and while it's not urgent I'd send it to Linus after -rc1, with Cc: stable.
>> Or you can send it to him yourself with my usual Acked-by - up to you.
> 
> Merging via your signal.git is fine.
> 
> Thx,
> -Vineet
> 

Hi Al,

Tickled by a spurious mail from "Kbuild test robot" with this change getting
committed into your tree (please see below, which Fengguang acknowledged as a
script error) I took a peek at the commit and it seems the commit log is truncated
when describing the New call chain of kernel_init. If that's too much you might
wanna delete all of the Old vs. New Call chains or preferably restore the "New" part.

Sorry for the nit.

Thx,
-Vineet

-------------->8-------------------------
tree:   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/viro/signal.git for-linus
head:   07570a268090d0a209d957e46d164900999c9e5b
commit: ec21b1033ee6dce41be78c10844f6169566d9d06 [1/6] Ensure that
kernel_init_freeable() is not inlined into non __init code
config: x86_64-randconfig-s542 (attached as .config)

Note: it may well be a FALSE warning. FWIW you are at least aware of it now.
-------------->8-------------------------


--
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/