linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] include/linux/compiler*.h: Use feature checking instead of version checks for attributes

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: <CANiq72n=WrLWD1-hq2z1gNPJViRoLvveq9xfw6Ndnj0S4Mp3eg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 27 Aug 2018 14:33:12 +0200
From:   Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Eli Friedman <efriedma@...eaurora.org>,
        Christopher Li <sparse@...isli.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@...ewreck.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] include/linux/compiler*.h: Use feature checking instead
 of version checks for attributes

Hi Joe,

On Sun, Aug 26, 2018 at 8:50 PM, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 2018-08-26 at 19:57 +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
>> Instead of using version checks per-compiler to define (or not) each attribute,
>> use __has_attribute to test for them, following the cleanup started with
>> commit 815f0ddb346c ("include/linux/compiler*.h: make compiler-*.h mutually exclusive").
>
> Very nice.  Thank you Miguel.

Thanks!

>
> trivia:
>
> I believe the alphabetic sorting of the required attributes
> makes reading by use a bit difficult and I would prefer that
> various required attributes are sorted by logical use instead.
>
> ie:  keep noinline and __always_inline together,
>      keep __used and __always_unused together,
>      etc...
>
>

Both ways are fine with me --- I sorted them as an attempt to avoid
the file evolving into a mess again in the upcoming years :-)

Half-joking: it may also be a good way to avoid people "guessing" what
the attributes do by name and, instead, consulting the docs (either
the compiler's, or a Doc/ file maybe).

Cheers,
Miguel