linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/raid6: correctly check for assembler capabilities

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:	Tue, 3 Feb 2015 22:24:19 +0100
From:	Valentin Rothberg <valentinrothberg@...il.com>
To:	NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
Cc:	Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>,
	mingo@...e.hu, tglx@...utronix.de, hpa@...or.com,
	james.t.kukunas@...ux.intel.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/raid6: correctly check for assembler capabilities

On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 10:09 PM, NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de> wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Feb 2015 22:03:35 +0100 Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2015-02-04 at 07:50 +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
>> > Actually the prefix of this macro is "CONFIG_AS_", not "CONFIG_" :-)
>> > CONFIG_AS_ is reserved for assembly magic, and is never used by the the
>> > kconfig system.
>> >
>> > (Well..... I might have made bits of that up, but "git grep 'config AS_'"
>> > doesn't find anything).
>>
>> That's correct, there are no Kconfig symbols starting with AS_. But
>> still, I would like to hear whether there's a reasonable chance I might
>> convince other people to adopt my peeve.
>>
>> The thinking behind that peeve is, basically, that where people
>> encounter a CONFIG_* macro they should only have to check the .config
>> file to see how that macro was evaluated in the build that was used.
>>
>
> Personally, I don't care.

A problem with those identifiers is that the CONFIG_ prefix is
reserved for Kconfig features in Make and CPP syntax.  The _MODULE
suffix for CPP alone.  Sadly, this convention is only documented in
the Kconfig C code itself.  Nonetheless, such cases give hard times to
static analysis tools that then have to deal with such false
positives.

Kind regards,
 Valentin

> But I find that developers in general are more responsive to code than to
> peeves.
>
> So if you post a patch which makes the change that you want, then you are
> more likely to get a useful response than if you just post a peeve.
> It may not be the response you want of course....
>
> NeilBrown
--
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/