linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv2 08/11] atomics: switch to generated fallbacks

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: <20180704152846.GL4828@arm.com>
Date:   Wed, 4 Jul 2018 16:28:47 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
        boqun.feng@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 08/11] atomics: switch to generated fallbacks

On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 11:59:49AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> As a step to ensuring the atomic* APIs are consistent, switch to fallbacks
> generated by gen-atomic-fallback.sh.
> 
> These are checked in rather than generated with Kbuild, since:
> 
> * This allows inspection of the atomics with git grep and ctags on a
>   pristine tree, which Linus strongly prefers being able to do.
> 
> * The fallbacks are not expected to change very often, and are not
>   affected by machine details or configuration options, so regenerating
>   them for *every* build is somewhat wasteful.
> 
> * These are included by files required *very* early in the build process
>   (e.g. for generating bounds.h), and we'd rather not complicate the
>   top-level Kbuild file.

Would it be worth checking that the generated output from the script doesn't
differ from the file in tree at some point during the build, and issuing a
warning if they do?

Will