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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 20 Feb 2019 16:30:34 +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 20/02/2019 à 14:23, Michael Ellerman a écrit :
> Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr> writes:
> 
>> 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.
>   
> Based on that I'm expecting a v3 of this series, right?

Right. Coming soon.

Christophe