linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 05/28] x86/asm/entry: annotate THUNKs

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: <20190212110501.GB30028@zn.tnic>
Date:   Tue, 12 Feb 2019 12:05:01 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
Cc:     mingo@...hat.com, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 05/28] x86/asm/entry: annotate THUNKs

On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 11:27:19AM +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> Yes, they do not end up in the symbol table. But the macros make clear
> where is the start of the function and especially where is the end
> (something like closing bracket '}' in C). If you prefer not annotating
> local symbols, I can of course drop it from everywhere. But to me it
> looks more readable to see "here it starts" and "here it ends", still
> without generating anything to the symbol table.

Agreed. Boundary annotation makes sense.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.