linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/18] arm64: move SCTLR_EL{1,2} assertions to <asm/sysreg.h>

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, 14 May 2018 14:10:13 +0100
From:   Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To:     Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>
Cc:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>, marc.zyngier@....com,
        catalin.marinas@....com, will.deacon@....com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux@...inikbrodowski.net,
        james.morse@....com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/18] arm64: move SCTLR_EL{1,2} assertions to
 <asm/sysreg.h>

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 01:41:23PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 01:06:10PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 12:56:09PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> > > On 14/05/18 12:20, Dave Martin wrote:
> > > > How about the following?
> > > > 
> > > > /* Watch out for #if evaluation rules: ~0 is not ~(int)0! */
> > > 
> > > Or, more formally, perhaps something even less vague like "Note that in
> > > preprocessor arithmetic these constants are effectively of type intmax_t,
> > > which is 64-bit, thus ~0 is not what we want."
> > 
> > I'll drop something in the commit message to that effect, rather than a
> > comment.
> > 
> > A comment will end up terse and vague or large and bloatsome (and
> > redundant as we have this pattern twice).
> > 
> > Anyone attempting to "clean" this up will find things break, and they can
> > look at the git log to find out why it is the way it is...
> 
> Fair enough.  So long as we say something somewhere, that's
> sufficient for me.
> 
> With that,
> 
> Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>
> 
> (as previously stated).

Cheers!

Mark.