linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/9] objtool: Fix ORC unwinding in non-JIT BPF generated code

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, 14 Jun 2019 08:13:49 -0700
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
        Kairui Song <kasong@...hat.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] objtool: Fix ORC unwinding in non-JIT BPF generated code

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 1:11 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 12:35:38AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 09:08:52AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 08:20:30PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 01:57:11PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > >
> > > > > and to patches 8 and 9.
> > > >
> > > > Well, it's your code, but ... can I ask why?  AT&T syntax is the
> > > > standard for Linux, which is in fact the OS we are developing for.
> > >
> > > I agree, all assembly in Linux is AT&T, adding Intel notation only
> > > serves to cause confusion.
> >
> > It's not assembly. It's C code that generates binary and here
> > we're talking about comments.
>
> And comments are useless if they don't clarify. Intel syntax confuses.
>
> > I'm sure you're not proposing to do:
> > /* mov src, dst */
> > #define EMIT_mov(DST, SRC)                                                               \
> > right?
>
> Which is why Josh reversed both of them. The current Intel order is just
> terribly confusing. And I don't see any of the other JITs having
> confusing comments like this.
>
> > bpf_jit_comp.c stays as-is. Enough of it.
>
> I think you're forgetting this is also arch/x86 code, and no, it needs
> changes because its broken wrt unwinding.

See MAINTAINERS file.
If you guys keep insisting on pointless churn like this
we'll move arch/x86/net/ into net/ where it probably belongs.
netdev has its own comment style too.
And it is also probably confusing to some folks.