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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <55AF9B13.4010406@linaro.org>
Date:	Wed, 22 Jul 2015 09:30:59 -0400
From:	David Long <dave.long@...aro.org>
To:	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
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 07/22/15 01:11, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> 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'm just defining a new macro for arm.  The macro is only invoked in one 
arm file.  Then the REG_OFFSET_NAME macro goes unused for this architecture.

>> 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.
>

Yeah, and I had not looked further to the implications of doing that but 
I see you've found where it is a genuine problem.

> 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
>
>

Thanks,
-dl

--
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/