linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] Move the pt_regs_offset struct definition from arch to common include file

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: <1437541889.16792.11.camel@ellerman.id.au>
Date:	Wed, 22 Jul 2015 15:11:29 +1000
From:	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To:	David Long <dave.long@...aro.org>
Cc:	Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>,
	Behan Webster <behanw@...verseincode.com>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>,
	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Jan Willeke <willeke@...ibm.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	Nikolay Borisov <Nikolay.Borisov@....com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Richard Kuo <rkuo@...eaurora.org>,
	Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...k.frob.com>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	linux-hexagon@...r.kernel.org,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, SH-Linux <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux390@...ibm.com, linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
	"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Move the pt_regs_offset struct definition from arch
 to common include file

On Wed, 2015-07-22 at 00:46 -0400, David Long wrote:
> On 06/29/15 23:29, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 14:30 -0400, David Long wrote:
> >> On 06/16/15 09:17, Rob Herring wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 11:42 AM, David Long <dave.long@...aro.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>    #define REG_OFFSET_NAME(r) \
> >>>>           {.name = #r, .offset = offsetof(struct pt_regs, ARM_##r)}
> >>>>    #define REG_OFFSET_END {.name = NULL, .offset = 0}
> >>>
> >>> Can't you also move these? ARM is complicated with the "ARM_"
> >>> prefixing, but the others appear to be the same. Maybe you can remove
> >>> the prefix or redefine the macro for ARM.
> >>
> >> That would mandate that all the architecture-specific pt_regs structures
> >> would have to use a top-level named field for each named register.
> >
> > Why does it mandate that?
> >
> > See eg. powerpc where we use REG_OFFSET_NAME for the top-level named fields and
> > then a different macro for the array elements:
> >
> >    #define REG_OFFSET_NAME(r) {.name = #r, .offset = offsetof(struct pt_regs, r)}
> >    #define GPR_OFFSET_NAME(num)	\
> >    	{.name = STR(gpr##num), .offset = offsetof(struct pt_regs, gpr[num])}
> >
> >    static const struct pt_regs_offset regoffset_table[] = {
> >    	GPR_OFFSET_NAME(0),
> >    	GPR_OFFSET_NAME(1),
> >    	GPR_OFFSET_NAME(2),
> >    	GPR_OFFSET_NAME(3),
> >    	...
> >    	REG_OFFSET_NAME(nip),
> >    	REG_OFFSET_NAME(msr),
> >
> >
> > So I don't see why REG_OFFSET_NAME couldn't be common.
> >
> 
> Sorry for the delay in responding to this.
> 
> OK, so you're saying architectures that don't want this constraint can 
> make their own macro.  Seems to make this whole exercise slightly less 
> useful, but whatever.

Well yeah.

In fact of the 4 arches that use REG_OFFSET_NAME, 2 already have another macro
for specially named registers (powerpc & sh).

> I see three ways to go here:
> 
> 1) Leave it as is.
> 2) Force all architectures to use a common definition.
> 3) Provide a common definition that all architectures (except "arm") 
> currently using this functionality will use.
> 
> I have a v2 patch to implement #3, ready to post.  Do we think this is 
> the way to go?

Yeah I think it is. How are you making it conditional? Just #ifndef REG_OFFSET_NAME?

> I don't like #2 because I really don't want to rename all 
> uses of the current register fields for arm since this is 
> architecture-specific code to begin with and since it affects code in 39 
> arm source files.

I guess you're talking about renaming all the ARM_x regs to x. That would
likely cause problems because they're implemented as #defines,
eg. #define r0 uregs[0] would probably confuse your assembler.

The clean thing to do would be to have the in-kernel struct pt_regs have actual
named members, but that would still be an intrusive change.

cheers


--
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/