linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v4 02/18] objtool: orc: Refactor ORC API for other architectures to implement.

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:   Thu, 22 Aug 2019 14:59:19 -0500
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:     Raphael Gault <raphael.gault@....com>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        peterz@...radead.org, catalin.marinas@....com, will.deacon@....com,
        julien.thierry.kdev@...il.com, raph.gault+kdev@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC v4 02/18] objtool: orc: Refactor ORC API for other
 architectures to implement.

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 01:23:47PM +0100, Raphael Gault wrote:
> The ORC unwinder is only supported on x86 at the moment and should thus be
> in the x86 architecture code. In order not to break the whole structure in
> case another architecture decides to support the ORC unwinder via objtool

> we choose to let the implementation be done in the architecture dependent
> code.

A general comment for all the patch descriptions: they should use
imperative language, like:

  "move the implementation to the architecture-specific code."

Also the subjects shouldn't have periods.

It would be a good idea to review
Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst.

> --- a/tools/objtool/orc_gen.c
> +++ b/tools/objtool/arch/x86/orc_gen.c
> @@ -6,11 +6,11 @@
>  #include <stdlib.h>
>  #include <string.h>
>  
> -#include "orc.h"
> -#include "check.h"
> -#include "warn.h"
> +#include "../../orc.h"
> +#include "../../check.h"
> +#include "../../warn.h"
>  
> -int create_orc(struct objtool_file *file)
> +int arch_create_orc(struct objtool_file *file)
>  {
>  	struct instruction *insn;
>  
> @@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ static int create_orc_entry(struct section *u_sec, struct section *ip_relasec,
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> -int create_orc_sections(struct objtool_file *file)
> +int arch_create_orc_sections(struct objtool_file *file)
>  {
>  	struct instruction *insn, *prev_insn;
>  	struct section *sec, *u_sec, *ip_relasec;
> @@ -209,3 +209,97 @@ int create_orc_sections(struct objtool_file *file)
>  
>  	return 0;
>  }
> +
> +int arch_orc_read_unwind_hints(struct objtool_file *file)
> +{

For naming consistency, please give them all an arch_orc prefix.  Also I
think arch_create_orc() should have a more specific name anyway, maybe
arch_orc_init().  So:

arch_orc_init()
arch_orc_create_sections()
arch_orc_read_unwind_hints()

-- 
Josh