linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] ARM: remove duplicate const qualifier

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:	Mon, 25 Apr 2016 15:37:31 +0100
From:	Eric Engestrom <eric.engestrom@...tec.com>
To:	Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>
CC:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>,
	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
	Roland Stigge <stigge@...com.de>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Alexander Shiyan <shc_work@...l.ru>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
	Viresh Kumar <vireshk@...nel.org>,
	<bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
	Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard <plagnioj@...osoft.com>,
	<spear-devel@...t.st.com>, Ray Jui <rjui@...adcom.com>,
	Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...com>, Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>,
	Krzysztof Halasa <khalasa@...p.pl>,
	Gregory Fong <gregory.0xf0@...il.com>,
	<linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>, Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>,
	Scott Branden <sbranden@...adcom.com>,
	Shiraz Hashim <shiraz.linux.kernel@...il.com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Sascha Hauer <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
	Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] ARM: remove duplicate const qualifier

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 10:12:16AM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> Beware.
> 
> I added many of those exactly because gcc did not ignore them when 
> compiling with LTO where the lack of a const qualifier to qualify the 
> actual array content, and not only the reference to that content, 
> generated build errors due to section mismatches from the __initconst 
> annotation.

I believe the first `const` does that, without the need for a second.

> So this is a NAK from me unless you may confirm that LTO builds are 
> unaffected by your changes.

I can't confirm it (haven't tried), and don't care enough to do it :]
I guess I'm just dropping the patch then. Like I said, it can't hurt to
leave them in.

Cheers,
Eric