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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190409161204.GS11158@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Tue, 9 Apr 2019 18:12:04 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Raphael Gault <raphael.gault@....com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        jpoimboe@...hat.com, catalin.marinas@....com, will.deacon@....com,
        julien.thierry@....com
Subject: Re: [RFC 3/6] objtool: arm64: Adapt the stack frame checks and the
 section analysis for the arm architecture


I'm just doing my initial read-through,.. however

On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 02:52:40PM +0100, Raphael Gault wrote:
> +		if (!(sec->sh.sh_flags & SHF_EXECINSTR)
> +			&& (strcmp(sec->name, ".altinstr_replacement") || !IGNORE_SHF_EXEC_FLAG))
>  			continue;

could you please not format code like that. Operators go at the end of
the line, and continuation should match the indentation of the opening
paren. So the above would look like:

> +		if (!(sec->sh.sh_flags & SHF_EXECINSTR) &&
> +		    (strcmp(sec->name, ".altinstr_replacement") || !IGNORE_SHF_EXEC_FLAG))
>  			continue;

You appear to be doing that quit consistently, and it is against style.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ