linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] locking/atomics: build atomic headers as required

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:   Mon, 26 Nov 2018 09:04:48 +0000
From:   Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        mingo@...nel.org, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/atomics: build atomic headers as required

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 09:46:21AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 03:33:21PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > Andrew and Ingo report that the check-atomics.sh script is simply too
> > slow to run for every kernel build, and it's impractical to make it
> > faster without rewriting it in something other than shell.
> > 
> > Rather than committing the generated headers, let's regenerate these
> > as-required for a pristine tree.
> 
> Thing is, I '_never_' have a pristine tree. Now, I would also be in a
> position to know if something with the atomics changed, but that can't help
> other people that never use pristine trees.

Just to be clear, regardless of whether the tree is pristine, the headers will
be rebuilt iff their dependencies have changed. It's just that they
*definitely* have to be built for a pristine tree.

So perhaps I just need to clarify the commit message? Or do you envisage a
problem with that?

I've realised I missed the fallbacks and library script from the dependency
list, so I can also fix that for v2.
 
> Could we perhaps get an explicit 'genatomics' target or something to
> check/force-update this stuff?

If that's preferable, I can have a go.

Thanks,
Mark.