linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] Compiler Attributes: don't pollute userspace with macro definitions

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:   Fri, 14 Dec 2018 18:17:14 +0800
From:   刘晓舟 <liuxiaozhou@...edance.com>
To:     Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Cc:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@...il.com>,
        Paul Burton <paul.burton@...s.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Compiler Attributes: don't pollute userspace with
 macro definitions

Hi Miguel,

On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 10:59:10PM +0100, Miguel Ojeda wrote:

> I wonder if we can/should simply move them into the __KERNEL__ &&
> !__ASSEMBLY__ block that is above, instead. It would be simpler to
> read, and there aren't apparently dependencies to those outside it
> that go after the block.

Yes, this is also more accurate. I will send a v3.

> I took a look at where the macros were at each "step", and, on one
> hand, compiler-gcc.h was (and is) included entirely inside it, which
> is from where most of the macros come originally from. On the other
> hand, not all do: __must_check (the generic version, not the one in
> -gcc.h) and noinline_for_stack were defined in __KERNEL__ (only)
> before commit 815f0ddb346c ("include/linux/compiler*.h: make
> compiler-*.h mutually exclusive"). But anyway using those two in
> assembly does not make sense, right?
>
> What do you think?

A simple grep shows no assembly are using those macros. Pretty sure
it is safe to do it this way.


Thanks,
Xiaozhou