linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 03/10] x86: assembly, use SYM_FUNC

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: <20170410193512.d67vefxedoockybg@treble>
Date:   Mon, 10 Apr 2017 14:35:12 -0500
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:     Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
Cc:     mingo@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de, hpa@...or.com,
        x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/10] x86: assembly, use SYM_FUNC_END for functions

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 01:23:46PM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 03/22/2017, 04:44 PM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> > On 03/22/2017, 03:26 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> >> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 01:32:15PM +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> >>> Somewhere END was used to end a function, elsewhere, nothing was used.
> >>> So unify it and mark them all by SYM_FUNC_END.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
> >>
> >> For me these patches would be easier to review if the SYM_FUNC_START and
> >> SYM_FUNC_END pairs for a given function are done in the same patch.
> > 
> > This patchset was intended to make everything paired with minimum
> > changes. I certainly can change also counter-elements of each
> > added/changed one if you prefer.
> 
> So do really you want me to use the new macros while I am
> adding/changing the counter-macro? Is there anything else blocking the
> merge of the patches?

The code should be in a mergeable state after each patch.  If only
patches 1-3 were merged, the code would be in an inconsistent state,
with some functions having confusing ENTRY/SYM_FUNC_END pairs.  That
complicates git history and also makes it harder to review each patch.

It would be cleaner to separate things out.  First, convert ENTRY/END
functions to use ENDPROC, which is a minor bug fix.  Then they can be
converted to the new SYM_FUNC_START/END macros in a separate patch.

-- 
Josh