linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] efi: Export arch

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: <20140326140800.GP3454@olila.local.net-space.pl>
Date:	Wed, 26 Mar 2014 15:08:00 +0100
From:	Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@...cle.com>
To:	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>
Cc:	david.vrabel@...rix.com, ian.campbell@...rix.com,
	stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com, jeremy@...p.org,
	fenghua.yu@...el.com, matt.fleming@...el.com, tony.luck@...el.com,
	x86@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
	boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com, konrad.wilk@...cle.com,
	eshelton@...ox.com, mingo@...hat.com, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	hpa@...or.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] efi: Export arch_tables variable

On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 01:21:19PM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 25.03.14 at 21:57, <daniel.kiper@...cle.com> wrote:
> > Export arch_tables variable. Xen init function calls efi_config_init()
> > which takes it as an argument.
> >
> > Additionally, put __initdata in place suggested by include/linux/init.h.
>
> Which isn't necessarily the most appropriate place.

Why? If comments in include/linux/init.h are not valid they should be changed.

> > --- a/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi.c
> > @@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ static efi_system_table_t efi_systab __initdata;
> >
> >  unsigned long x86_efi_facility;
> >
> > -static __initdata efi_config_table_type_t arch_tables[] = {
> > +efi_config_table_type_t arch_tables[] __initdata = {
>
> efi_config_table_type_t __initdata arch_tables[] = {
>
> would be what I'd recommend.
>
> > --- a/include/linux/efi.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/efi.h
> > @@ -583,6 +583,8 @@ extern struct efi {
> >  	struct efi_memory_map *memmap;
> >  } efi;
> >
> > +extern efi_config_table_type_t arch_tables[] __initdata;
>
> And section placement annotations are bogus on declarations.

Hmmm... I am not sure which approach is better. I saw that
in many places declarations have annotations. Could you
point me some docs which states (and explains) that this
is wrong idea.

Daniel
--
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/