linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] libosd: Remove ignored _

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, 31 Oct 2018 18:44:27 -0700
From:   Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>
To:     Boaz Harrosh <ooo@...ctrozaur.com>
Cc:     Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libosd: Remove ignored __weak attribute

On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 03:39:54AM +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> On 26/10/18 00:31, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 04:06:31PM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> <>
> > 
> > Hi Bart,
> > 
> > I'm sorry if I didn't follow the conclusion of this conversation properly
> > but this is the below diff you were initially looking for, correct?
> > 
> > If so, Boaz and Nick, do you have any objections if this is v2? I'd like
> > to get this patch accepted so the warning can be fixed for everyone.
> > 
> 
> ACK on both the original and below code they will all work just fine.
> 
> I do like the original "just remove the _weak thingy". But this one
> will work as well.
> 
> The "with extern" version suggested before is more cumbersome because it will
> need an EXPORT_SYMBOL() but will also work.
> 
> The all use of osd_root_object is just. A properly C-types pointer to couple
> of ZEROS. but since the Interface needs a pointer, those zeros need storage
> somewhere. It does not matter where. (The value of the pointer is not used
> only its content)
> 
> Do you need that I send a proper patch? Actually the original first patch
> is the version I like. (And again all 3 approaches will work)
> 
> Thanks
> Boaz
> 

Hi Boaz,

I am fine with the original v1 as long as you and everyone else are.
I don't mind resending or making a v2 if I need to as well. Just would
like everyone to come to an agreement on something!

Thanks for the review and clarity,
Nathan

> > Thanks,
> > Nathan
> > 
> > ================================================================================
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/osd/osd_initiator.c b/drivers/scsi/osd/osd_initiator.c
> > index e19fa883376f..4250f739beb3 100644
> > --- a/drivers/scsi/osd/osd_initiator.c
> > +++ b/drivers/scsi/osd/osd_initiator.c
> > @@ -58,6 +58,8 @@
> > 
> >  enum { OSD_REQ_RETRIES = 1 };
> > 
> > +static const struct osd_obj_id osd_root_object;
> > +
> >  MODULE_AUTHOR("Boaz Harrosh <ooo@...ctrozaur.com>");
> >  MODULE_DESCRIPTION("open-osd initiator library libosd.ko");
> >  MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
> > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/osd/osd_uld.c b/drivers/scsi/osd/osd_uld.c
> > index eaf36ccf58db..770c758baaa9 100644
> > --- a/drivers/scsi/osd/osd_uld.c
> > +++ b/drivers/scsi/osd/osd_uld.c
> > @@ -73,6 +73,7 @@
> > 
> >  static const char osd_name[] = "osd";
> >  static const char *osd_version_string = "open-osd 0.2.1";
> > +static const struct osd_obj_id osd_root_object;
> > 
> >  MODULE_AUTHOR("Boaz Harrosh <ooo@...ctrozaur.com>");
> >  MODULE_DESCRIPTION("open-osd Upper-Layer-Driver osd.ko");
> > diff --git a/include/scsi/osd_types.h b/include/scsi/osd_types.h
> > index 48e8a165e136..eb31357ec8b3 100644
> > --- a/include/scsi/osd_types.h
> > +++ b/include/scsi/osd_types.h
> > @@ -28,8 +28,6 @@ struct osd_obj_id {
> >         osd_id id;
> >  };
> > 
> > -static const struct __weak osd_obj_id osd_root_object = {0, 0};
> > -
> >  struct osd_attr {
> >         u32 attr_page;
> >         u32 attr_id;
> > 
>