linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] powerpc/64: make buildable without CONFIG

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: <CAK8P3a1zXqUP0R2O88wnoc35tU9YzF5hZV0J2N6tXG27UJb0tw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 29 Aug 2019 10:49:43 +0200
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>,
        Andrew Donnellan <andrew.donnellan@....ibm.com>,
        Nicolai Stange <nstange@...e.de>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Hari Bathini <hbathini@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>,
        Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
        Firoz Khan <firoz.khan@...aro.org>,
        Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Michal Suchanek <msuchanek@...e.de>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        Allison Randal <allison@...utok.net>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] powerpc/64: make buildable without CONFIG_COMPAT

On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 10:38 AM Christophe Leroy
<christophe.leroy@....fr> wrote:
> Le 29/08/2019 à 10:01, Arnd Bergmann a écrit :
> > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 8:46 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> >>> @@ -277,7 +277,7 @@ static void do_signal(struct task_struct *tsk)
> >>>
> >>>        rseq_signal_deliver(&ksig, tsk->thread.regs);
> >>>
> >>> -     if (is32) {
> >>> +     if ((IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PPC32) || IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_COMPAT)) && is32) {
> >>
> >> I think we should fix the is_32bit_task definitions instead so that
> >> callers don't need this mess.  I'd suggest something like:
> >>
> >> #ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
> >> #define is_32bit_task()         test_thread_flag(TIF_32BIT)
> >> #else
> >> #define is_32bit_task()         IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PPC32)
> >> #endif
> >
> > Are there actually any (correct) uses of is_32bit_task() outside of
> > #ifdef CONFIG_PPC64?
>
> There is at least  stack_maxrandom_size()
> Also  brk_rnd() and do_signal()

Right, makes sense.

      Arnd