linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/8] x86/platform/uv: Return UV Hubless System Type

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: <20190903154109.GB2791@infradead.org>
Date:   Tue, 3 Sep 2019 08:41:09 -0700
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:     Mike Travis <mike.travis@....com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Dimitri Sivanich <dimitri.sivanich@....com>,
        Russ Anderson <russ.anderson@....com>,
        Hedi Berriche <hedi.berriche@....com>,
        Steve Wahl <steve.wahl@....com>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] x86/platform/uv: Return UV Hubless System Type

On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 07:12:28AM -0700, Mike Travis wrote:
> > > +#define is_uv_hubless _is_uv_hubless
> > 
> > Why the weird macro indirection?
> > 
> > > -static inline int is_uv_hubless(void)	{ return 0; }
> > > +static inline int _is_uv_hubless(int uv) { return 0; }
> > > +#define is_uv_hubless _is_uv_hubless
> > 
> > And here again.
> > 
> 
> Sorry, I should have explained this better.  The problem arises because
> we have a number of UV specific kernel modules that support multiple
> distributions.  And with back porting to earlier distros we cannot
> rely on the KERNEL_VERSION macro to define whether the source is being
> built for an earlier kernel.  So this allows an ifdef on the function
> name to discover if the kernel is before or after these changes.

And none of these matter for upstream.  We'd rather not make the code
more convouluted than required.  If you actually really cared about these
modules you would simply submit them upstream.