linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] x86/vdso changes for v3.16

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: <20140608171848.GA19777@ravnborg.org>
Date:	Sun, 8 Jun 2014 19:18:48 +0200
From:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	gorcunov@...nvz.org, hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	luto@...capital.net, mingo@...nel.org, sasha.levin@...cle.com,
	stefani@...bold.net, tglx@...utronix.de, xemul@...allels.com,
	kbuild@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86/vdso changes for v3.16

On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 02:07:11PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 06/06/2014 02:00 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 4 Jun 2014 15:35:42 -0700 "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> Vdso cleanups and improvements largely from Andy Lutomirski.
> > 
> > arch/x86/vdso/vdso2c.h: In function 'go64':
> > arch/x86/vdso/vdso2c.h:21: warning: implicit declaration of function 'le64toh'
> > arch/x86/vdso/vdso2c.h:21: warning: implicit declaration of function 'le32toh'
> > arch/x86/vdso/vdso2c.h:21: warning: implicit declaration of function 'le16toh'
> > arch/x86/vdso/vdso2c.h:119: warning: implicit declaration of function 'htole16'
> > 
> > My Fedora Core 6 (lol gotcha) test box doesn't have these.
> > 
> > http://www.unix.com/man-page/linux/3/le64toh/ has some details.  I
> > don't appear to have letoh64 and friends either.  
> > 
> 
> OK... so now we have a tools baseline problem.  It isn't that we
> couldn't open-code these functions, but of course we'd also like to not
> *have* to do so... but also we don't want to have the kernel build rely
> on autoconf ;)
> 
> So we have a few options, here:
> 
> 1. We could use the unaligned macros defined in
>    tools/include/tools/*_byteshift.h.
> 
> 2. Open-code it.
> 
> 3. Define a baseline which includes these kinds of functions.
> 
> I guess I would be leaning toward #1, but would also wonder if that also
> means we should add -I$(srctree)/tools/include to the global settings
> ... we are *already* adding it to HOSTCFLAGS_sortextable.o.

I would say that tools/include/tools/* should be considered the baseline
for programs running on the host.
So therefore unconditionally adding -I$(srctree)/tools/include should then
be OK.

	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/