linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH]memblock: Fix potential section mismatch problem

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: <20130613015827.GA2667@udknight>
Date:	Thu, 13 Jun 2013 09:58:27 +0800
From:	Wang YanQing <udknight@...il.com>
To:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Wanpeng Li <liwanp@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Tang Chen <tangchen@...fujitsu.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH]memblock: Fix potential section mismatch problem

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:29:17AM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Wang YanQing <udknight@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > This patch convert __init to __init_memblock
> > for functions which make reference to memblock variable
> > with attribute __meminitdata.
> 
> for which arch?

I just think different arch could have different
meaning about __init and __init_memblock, but
if a function call another function with __init_memblock
annotation or has reference to variable with  __initdata_memblock,
then we have better to give it __init_memblock annotation.


> for x86: __init_memblock is __init, so that is not problem.

Thanks for point out this, then I know why I haven't get
compile warning.

> for other arches like powerpc and sparc etc, __init_memblock is " "
> 
> so you need cc  powerpc, and sparc ...

My first motivation to propose this patch was I found below 
two functions have different annotation which I think they 
should have the same annotation:

"
int __init memblock_is_reserved(phys_addr_t addr)
{
        return memblock_search(&memblock.reserved, addr) != -1;
}

int __init_memblock memblock_is_memory(phys_addr_t addr)
{
        return memblock_search(&memblock.memory, addr) != -1;
}
"


Thanks
--
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/