linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] checkpatch: Add error on use of attribute((weak)) or _

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]

Date:	Wed, 15 Oct 2014 12:45:48 -0700
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] checkpatch: Add error on use of attribute((weak))
 or __weak

On Wed, 2014-10-15 at 12:42 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 12:32:08 -0700 Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> 
> > Using weak can have unintended link defects.
> > Emit an error on its use.
> 
> Well, we don't want a warning about use of __weak in function
> definitions.  Only in declarations.

Why is that?

> > --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> > +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> > @@ -4671,6 +4671,14 @@ sub process {
> >  			}
> >  		}
> >  
> > +# Check for __attribute__ weak, or __weak (may have link issues)
> > +		if ($realfile !~ m@\binclude/uapi/@ &&
> 
> And this bit maybe is checking for use in a header file, which is not
> as good as checking for a declaration but is probably good enough. 
> However the "uapi" bit is confusing.
> 
> Can we have a better changelog please?

Suggestions?

--
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/