linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] page-flags: rectify forward declaration

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: <20150921153509.fef7ecdf313ef74307c43b65@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Mon, 21 Sep 2015 15:35:09 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>
Cc:	Haavard Skinnemoen <hskinnemoen@...il.com>,
	Hans-Christian Egtvedt <egtvedt@...fundet.no>,
	Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] page-flags: rectify forward declaration

On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 22:42:59 +0530 Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com> wrote:

> compound_head is defined as inline in page-flags.h but in the forward
> declaration of compound_head in the same file missed "inline". As a result
> we got plenty of build warnings while building for some architecture
> like avr32. The warning showed as:
> warning: 'compound_head' declared inline after being called.
> warning: previous declaration of 'compound_head' was here
> 
> ...
>
> --- a/include/linux/page-flags.h
> +++ b/include/linux/page-flags.h
> @@ -227,7 +227,7 @@ static inline int __TestClearPage##uname(struct page *page) { return 0; }
>  struct page;
>  static inline int PageCompound(struct page *page);
>  static inline int PageTail(struct page *page);
> -static struct page *compound_head(struct page *page);
> +static inline struct page *compound_head(struct page *page);
>  
>  __PAGEFLAG(Locked, locked, PF_NO_TAIL)
>  PAGEFLAG(Error, error, PF_NO_COMPOUND) TESTCLEARFLAG(Error, error, PF_NO_COMPOUND)

Yes, that's an error, in -mm due to Kirill's page-flags patches.


The code is effectively doing

static inline XXX foo(...);

static inline YYY bar(...)
{
	foo(...);
}

inline XXX foo(...)
{
	...
}

ie: asking gcc to inline a forward-defined function.  That does work,
but it's unusual and unexpected, and it's a bit unwise to expect the
compiler to do unusual and more difficult things.

Is it fixable?  Can we use the traditional define-before-using structure?

Also, I'm finding that the patch series introduces a pretty large
bisection hole:

include/linux/page-flags.h: In function 'PageYoung':
include/linux/page-flags.h:327: error: implicit declaration of function 'PF_ANY'
include/linux/page-flags.h:327: error: invalid type argument of '->' (have 'int')
include/linux/page-flags.h:327: error: invalid type argument of '->' (have 'int')

which later gets fixed up by
page-flags-rectify-forward-declaration.patch.

Maybe it's time to do a wholesale refactoring of the patchset?
--
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/