linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/9] RISC-V: Task implementation

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, 29 Jun 2017 15:52:42 -0700 (PDT)
From:   Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>
To:     james.hogan@...tec.com
CC:     albert@...ive.com
Subject:     Re: [PATCH 5/9] RISC-V: Task implementation

On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 16:32:55 PDT (-0700), james.hogan@...tec.com wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 11:55:34AM -0700, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/kprobes.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/kprobes.h
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..1190de7a0f74
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/kprobes.h
>> @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
> ...
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_KPROBES
>> +#error "RISC-V doesn't skpport CONFIG_KPROBES"
>> +#endif
>
> I'm wondering where your fallback definition of e.g. NOKPROBE_SYMBOL
> comes from then.
>
> Could you just use the asm-generic one?

I believe so.

>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/process.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/process.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..b13d3ea3bf79
>> --- /dev/null

> ...
>> +void show_regs(struct pt_regs *regs)
>> +{
>> +	show_regs_print_info(KERN_DEFAULT);
>> +
>> +	printk(KERN_CONT "sepc: " REG_FMT " ra : " REG_FMT " sp : " REG_FMT "\n",
>> +		regs->sepc, regs->ra, regs->sp);
>
> I've noticed inconsistent use of pr_* and printk(KERN_* in this
> patchset. Maybe now would be the best time to switch everything to pr_*.

I went through and fixed them all.

>> +	/* Reset FPU context
>> +	 *	frm: round to nearest, ties to even (IEEE default)
>> +	 *	fflags: accrued exceptions cleared
>> +	 */
>
> Similarly lots of multiline comments which don't follow the standard
> style in Documentation/process/coding-style.rst. Maybe now is the best
> time to convert if you're going to.

Someone else found one and suggested this, it's on my TODO list.

Thanks!