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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 17:06:24 -0700 From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org> To: Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@...il.com>, Andreas Färber <afaerber@...e.de> Cc: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>, Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>, Richard Henderson <rth@...ddle.net>, Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@...assic.park.msu.ru>, Matt Turner <mattst88@...il.com>, Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>, Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>, James Hogan <jhogan@...nel.org>, "James E . J . Bottomley" <jejb@...isc-linux.org>, Helge Deller <deller@....de>, "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>, Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>, Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com>, Cao jin <caoj.fnst@...fujitsu.com>, Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>, Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org, "moderated list:ARM/Allwinner sunXi SoC support" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org, linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH] kbuild: add machine size to CHEKCFLAGS On 05/30/2018 04:06 PM, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote: > On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 12:00 AM, Andreas Färber <afaerber@...e.de> wrote: >> Hi Luc, >> >> The typo in the subject made me curious... >> >> Am 30.05.2018 um 22:48 schrieb Luc Van Oostenryck: >>> By default, sparse assumes a 64bit machine when compiled on x86-64 >>> and 32bit when compiled on anything else. >>> >>> This can of course create all sort of problems for the other archs, like >>> issuing false warnings ('shift too big (32) for type unsigned long'), or >>> worse, failing to emit legitimate warnings. >>> >>> Fix this by adding the -m32/-m64 flag, depending on CONFIG_64BIT, >>> to CHECKFLAGS in the main Makefile (and so for all archs). >>> Also, remove the now unneeded -m32/-m64 in arch specific Makefiles. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@...il.com> >>> --- >>> Makefile | 3 +++ >>> arch/alpha/Makefile | 2 +- >>> arch/arm/Makefile | 2 +- >>> arch/arm64/Makefile | 2 +- >>> arch/ia64/Makefile | 2 +- >>> arch/mips/Makefile | 3 --- >>> arch/parisc/Makefile | 2 +- >>> arch/sparc/Makefile | 2 +- >>> arch/x86/Makefile | 2 +- >>> 9 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) >> >> What about the architectures not touched by your patch that previously >> had no -m32/-m64? (arc, c6x, h8300, hexagon, m68k, microblaze, nds32, >> nios2, openrisc, powerpc, riscv, s390, sh, unicore32, xtensa) > > As explained in the patch, by default sparse uses -m64 if compiled on x86-64 > and 32bit on everything else (well, more recent versions use -m64 if > compiled on any 64 bit machine). I think that most ppc devs use a ppc > machine and so ppc was most probably fine (at least ppc64) but I suspect > that most of these others archs either had never sparse used on them > or had a lot of wrong warnings. IOW, it was maybe OK but most probably > incorrect for them and now it is OK. > >> You forgot to CC them on this patch. > > I didn't thought/knew it was needed and the CC list is already > quite long but, if needed, no problem for me. Ideally, adding linux-arch@...r.kernel.org would be sufficient, but sadly I have doubts about that. >> Have you really checked that all their toolchains support the -m32/-m64 >> flags you newly introduce for them? Apart from non-biarch architectures, >> I'm thinking of 31-bit s390 as a corner case where !64 != 32. > > Hmm, there is no change to anything I call 'toolchain related', like > compiler and linker. The only change is sparse (or any other checker) > receiving now a correct and explicit -m32 or -m64. > > For s390, as far as I know: > 1) it has CONFIG_64BIT unconditionally definee (because the old 31bit > is no more supported, now everything is s390x only). > 2) even if the *address space* was only 31 bit, I'm very sure > that sizeof(long) and sizeof(void*) was 4 on these machine > hence -m32 would have been correct. -- ~Randy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists