linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] Mark literal strings in __init / _

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: <1403505219.18747.37.camel@joe-AO725>
Date:	Sun, 22 Jun 2014 23:33:39 -0700
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	Mathias Krause <minipli@...glemail.com>
Cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] Mark literal strings in __init / __exit code

On Mon, 2014-06-23 at 08:23 +0200, Mathias Krause wrote:
> On 23 June 2014 00:56, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2014-06-23 at 00:46 +0200, Mathias Krause wrote:
> >> [...] patch 2 adds some syntactical sugar for the most popular use
> >> case, by providing pr_<level> alike macros, namely pi_<level> for __init
> >> code and pe_<level> for __exit code. This hides the use of the marker
> >> macros behind the commonly known printing functions -- with just a
> >> single character changed.
> >>
> >> Patch 3 exemplarily changes all strings and format strings in
> >> arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c to use the new macros. It also addresses a
> >> few styling issues, though. But this already leads to ~1.7 kB of r/o
> >> data moved to the .init.rodata section, marking it for release after
> >> init.
> >>
> >> [...]
> >
> > I once proposed a similar thing.
> >
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2009/7/21/421
> >
> > Matt Mackall replied
> >
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2009/7/21/463
> >
> 
> Thanks for the pointers. Have you looked at patch 2 and 3? I don't
> think it makes the printk() case ugly. In fact, using pi_<level>()
> should be no less readable then pr_<level>, no?

I don't think it's particularly less readable, but I
do think using the plug-in mechanism might be a better
option as it would need no manual markings at all.

cheers, Joe

--
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/