linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 char-misc 1/1] x86/hyperv: Add interrupt handler annotations

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:   Wed, 4 Apr 2018 10:16:29 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     mikelley@...rosoft.com
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devel@...uxdriverproject.org,
        olaf@...fle.de, apw@...onical.com, vkuznets@...hat.com,
        jasowang@...hat.com, leann.ogasawara@...onical.com,
        marcelo.cerri@...onical.com, sthemmin@...rosoft.com,
        kys@...rosoft.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 char-misc 1/1] x86/hyperv: Add interrupt handler
 annotations

On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 01:59:08PM -0700, mhkelley58@...il.com wrote:
> From: Michael Kelley <mikelley@...rosoft.com>
> 
> Add standard interrupt handler annotations to
> hyperv_vector_handler().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Michael Kelley <mikelley@...rosoft.com>
> ---
> Changes in v2:
> * Fixed From: line
> ---
>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mshyperv.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mshyperv.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mshyperv.c
> index 4488cf0..20f6849 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mshyperv.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mshyperv.c
> @@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ static void (*hv_stimer0_handler)(void);
>  static void (*hv_kexec_handler)(void);
>  static void (*hv_crash_handler)(struct pt_regs *regs);
>  
> -void hyperv_vector_handler(struct pt_regs *regs)
> +__visible void __irq_entry hyperv_vector_handler(struct pt_regs *regs)

What bug does this solve?  What is wrong with the existing markings?
What does __visible and __irq_entry give us that we don't already have
and we need?

Are you really using LTO that requires this marking to prevent the code
from being removed?

thanks,

greg k-h