linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] net: ethernet: atheros: atlx: Use PCI generic definitions instead of private duplicates

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]

Message-ID: <CAMXMK6uUgLSz=DXazLY81pkiMjtyxKxNeR_VcWOOh1NvaEyS8w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 21 Jun 2019 15:45:11 -0700
From:   Chris Snook <chris.snook@...il.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@...il.com>,
        Jay Cliburn <jcliburn@...il.com>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn@...gaas.com>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
        Linux PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] net: ethernet: atheros: atlx: Use PCI generic
 definitions instead of private duplicates

On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 11:33 AM Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2019-06-21 at 13:12 -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 12:27 PM Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> []
> > > Subsystem specific local PCI #defines without generic
> > > naming is poor style and makes treewide grep and
> > > refactoring much more difficult.
> >
> > Don't worry, we have the same objectives.  I totally agree that local
> > #defines are a bad thing, which is why I proposed this project in the
> > first place.
>
> Hi again Bjorn.
>
> I didn't know that was your idea.  Good idea.
>
> > I'm just saying that this is a "first-patch" sort of learning project
> > and I think it'll avoid some list spamming and discouragement if we
> > can figure out the scope and shake out some of the teething problems
> > ahead of time.  I don't want to end up with multiple versions of
> > dozens of little 2-3 patch series posted every week or two.
>
> Great, that's sensible.
>
> > I'd rather be able to deal with a whole block of them at one time.
>
> Also very sensible.
>
> > > 2: Show that you compiled the object files and verified
> > >    where possible that there are no object file changes.
> >
> > Do you have any pointers for the best way to do this?  Is it as simple
> > as comparing output of "objdump -d"?
>
> Generically, yes.
>
> I have a little script that does the equivalent of:
>
> <git reset>
> make <foo.o>
> mv <foo.o> <foo.o>.old
> patch -P1 < <foo_patch>
> make <foo.o>
> mv <foo.o> <foo.o>.new
> diff -urN <(objdump -d <foo.o>.old) <(objdump -d <foo.o>.new)
>
> But it's not foolproof as gcc does not guarantee
> compilation repeatability.
>
> And some subsystems Makefiles do not allow per-file
> compilation.
>

This should work, but be aware that the older atlx drivers did some
regrettable things with file structure, so not all .c files are
expected to generate a corresponding .o file.

- Chris