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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20181126093347.GM2113@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Mon, 26 Nov 2018 10:33:47 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
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 09:04:48AM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> 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.

Ah, ok. Yeah, maybe call that out explicitly. But that will certainly
work for me.

Thanks!