linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] remove old GCC version implementation

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 17 Nov 2018 09:00:29 +0100
From:   Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To:     Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
Cc:     malat@...ian.org, Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
        linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove old GCC version implementation

On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 5:14 PM Masahiro Yamada
<yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 8:28 PM Miguel Ojeda
> <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > By the way, is it possible that scripts/ and similar stuff uses
> > directly include/linux/compiler_attributes.h (whenever it hits
> > mainline, see https://github.com/ojeda/linux/blob/compiler-attributes/include/linux/compiler_attributes.h
> > )? It is a header that does not depend on anything, so it could easily
> > be shared; and would avoid having to maintain two sets of attributes.
> > Let me know, I can take a look at it if you think it is a good idea.

Landed a couple of weeks ago.

> No.
> I want to share a header file between kernel and host-tools
> only when we need to do so.
>
> In this case, it is wrong to use the linker magic for the host tool
> if you look at the so ugly #if defined(__MACH__) part.

Do you mean this line?

  #define SECTION(name)   __attribute__((section("__TEXT, " #name)))

I would say having exceptions is fine, i.e. the idea was to reduce
"duplicated" definitions. In this case, the #define has a different
name and style, so I would say it is clear.

Anyway, if the policy is not sharing headers at all, that is fine!

Cheers,
Miguel