linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kbuild: provide include/asm/asm-prototypes.h for ARM

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:   Thu, 20 Oct 2016 10:23:58 +0200
From:   Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To:     Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.com>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        Adam Borowski <kilobyte@...band.pl>,
        Omar Sandoval <osandov@...ndov.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        linux-kbuild <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kbuild: provide include/asm/asm-prototypes.h for ARM

Hi Russell,

On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
<linux@...linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 09:37:30AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 5:32 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
>> <linux@...linux.org.uk> wrote:
>> > I'm not in favour of this.
>> >
>> >    +extern void mmioset(void *, unsigned int, size_t);
>> >    +extern void mmiocpy(void *, const void *, size_t);
>> >    +
>> >     #ifndef __ARMBE__
>> >     static inline void memset_io(volatile void __iomem *dst, unsigned c,
>> >            size_t count)
>> >     {
>> >    -       extern void mmioset(void *, unsigned int, size_t);
>> >            mmioset((void __force *)dst, c, count);
>> >     }
>> >
>> > The reason they're declared _within_ memset_io() is to prevent people
>> > from using them by hiding their declaration.  Moving them outside is
>> > an open invitation to stupid people starting to use them as an "oh it
>> > must be an official API".
>>
>> If they're not intended for public use, they should (also) be prefixed
>> with "__" or even "____" to make this clear.
>
> Tried that with the __cpuc_* cache flushing interfaces.  It doesn't
> have any effect what so ever.

it may not stop the deliberate abuser, but it hints the casual reviewer.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds