linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] powerpc/ptrace: Add prototype for function pt_regs

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, 15 Feb 2019 09:21:27 +0100
From:   Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>
To:     Mathieu Malaterre <malat@...ian.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Cc:     linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/ptrace: Add prototype for function pt_regs_check



Le 15/02/2019 à 09:11, Mathieu Malaterre a écrit :
> On Sat, Dec 8, 2018 at 4:46 PM Mathieu Malaterre <malat@...ian.org> wrote:
>>
>> `pt_regs_check` is a dummy function, its purpose is to break the build
>> if struct pt_regs and struct user_pt_regs don't match.
>>
>> This function has no functionnal purpose, and will get eliminated at
>> link time or after init depending on CONFIG_LD_DEAD_CODE_DATA_ELIMINATION
>>
>> This commit adds a prototype to fix warning at W=1:
>>
>>    arch/powerpc/kernel/ptrace.c:3339:13: error: no previous prototype for ‘pt_regs_check’ [-Werror=missing-prototypes]
>>
>> Suggested-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>
>> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Malaterre <malat@...ian.org>
>> ---
>>   arch/powerpc/kernel/ptrace.c | 4 ++++
>>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/ptrace.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/ptrace.c
>> index a398999d0770..341c0060b4c8 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/ptrace.c
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/ptrace.c
>> @@ -3338,6 +3338,10 @@ void do_syscall_trace_leave(struct pt_regs *regs)
>>          user_enter();
>>   }
>>
>> +void __init pt_regs_check(void);
>> +/* dummy function, its purpose is to break the build if struct pt_regs and
>> + * struct user_pt_regs don't match.
>> + */
> 
> Another trick which seems to work with GCC is:
> 
> -void __init pt_regs_check(void)
> +static inline void __init pt_regs_check(void)

Does this really work ? Did you test to ensure that the BUILD_BUG_ON 
still detect mismatch between struct pt_regs and struct user_pt_regs ?

Christophe

> 
>>   void __init pt_regs_check(void)
>>   {
>>          BUILD_BUG_ON(offsetof(struct pt_regs, gpr) !=
>> --
>> 2.19.2
>>