linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 00/15] powerpc/32s: Use BATs/LTLBs for STRICT_KERNEL

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]

Message-ID: <8b072209-c845-20f5-8ff1-27ecd67b5c72@c-s.fr>
Date:   Tue, 15 Jan 2019 11:57:41 +0100
From:   Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>
To:     Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Jonathan Neuschäfer <j.neuschaefer@....net>
Cc:     Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/15] powerpc/32s: Use BATs/LTLBs for
 STRICT_KERNEL_RWX



Le 15/01/2019 à 11:22, Michael Ellerman a écrit :
> Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr> writes:
>> Le 15/01/2019 à 01:33, Jonathan Neuschäfer a écrit :
> ...
>>>
>>> - patches 7 to 11 fail to build with this error (really a warning, but
>>>     arch/powerpc doesn't allow warnings by default):
>>>
>>> 	  CC      arch/powerpc/mm/ppc_mmu_32.o
>>> 	../arch/powerpc/mm/ppc_mmu_32.c:133:13: error: ‘clearibat’ defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function]
>>> 	 static void clearibat(int index)
>>> 		     ^~~~~~~~~
>>> 	../arch/powerpc/mm/ppc_mmu_32.c:115:13: error: ‘setibat’ defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function]
>>> 	 static void setibat(int index, unsigned long virt, phys_addr_t phys,
>>> 		     ^~~~~~~
>>> 	cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
>>
>> Argh ! I have to squash the patch bringing the new functions with the
>> one using them (patch 12). The result is a big messy patch which is more
>> difficult to review but that's life.
> 
> You don't *have* to squash them.
> 
> We like to preserve bisectability, but it's not a 100% hard requirement.
> 
> Someone trying to bisect through those patches can always turn off
> -Werror with PPC_DISABLE_WERROR. But they probably can just skip them
> because they just add new code that's not called yet.

Ok thanks for the note.

> 
> So I won't object if you send them as-is.

Good to know. Anyway I think I will at least re-order so that the patch 
using the new functions immediatly follows the one adding the functions.

Christophe

> 
> cheers
>