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  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:   Thu, 21 Feb 2019 00:23:09 +1100
From:   Michael Ellerman <>
To:     Christophe Leroy <>,
        Jonathan Neuschäfer 
Cc:     Benjamin Herrenschmidt <>,
        Paul Mackerras <>,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/15] powerpc/32s: Use BATs/LTLBs for STRICT_KERNEL_RWX

Christophe Leroy <> writes:

> Le 15/01/2019 à 11:22, Michael Ellerman a écrit :
>> Christophe Leroy <> 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.
Based on that I'm expecting a v3 of this series, right?


Powered by blists - more mailing lists