linux-kernel - Re: klp: remove superfluous errors in asm/livepatch.h

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: <20160309161123.GB21308@treble.redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 9 Mar 2016 10:11:23 -0600
From:	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:	Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
Cc:	Jessica Yu <jeyu@...hat.com>, Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>,
	sjenning@...hat.com, vojtech@...e.com, pmladek@...e.cz,
	mpe@...erman.id.au, live-patching@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: klp: remove superfluous errors in asm/livepatch.h

On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 11:39:05AM +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Mar 2016, Jessica Yu wrote:
> 
> > Hm, I should've caught this earlier, but the notifier cleanup patch
> > that removes the livepatch module notifier had kernel/module.c include
> > livepatch.h for the klp_module_{coming,going} function stubs in the
> > !CONFIG_LIVEPATCH case. See here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/2/8/1182
> > 
> > Looking back, I now don't think it makes sense for module.c to include
> > all those livepatch definitions in the first place, since all it
> > needed was the klp_module_{coming,going} declarations. I guess my
> > question is, since we've removed the #ifdef CONFIG_LIVEPATCH blocks
> > from livepatch.h, where might be a better place for the
> > klp_module_{coming,going} stubs? Perhaps they could go in module.h
> > instead?
> 
> Well, once there actually are alternate stubs to be included through the 
> header file (like in the proposed notifier removal), it indeed makes sense 
> to reintroduce the #ifdef. And once it's there, it probably doesn't make 
> too much sense to have it guard only portion of the file.

It's a minor issue but I think it would be cleaner if we only guard the
parts of the file which need to be guarded.

-- 
Josh