linux-kernel - Re: sparse warnings on undeclared asmlinkage

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20191011185348.pkfsexr742x5xwgm@ltop.local>
Date:   Fri, 11 Oct 2019 20:53:49 +0200
From:   Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@...il.com>
To:     Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@...ethink.co.uk>
Cc:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: sparse warnings on undeclared asmlinkage

On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 05:18:58PM +0100, Ben Dooks wrote:
> I was reviewing the sparse output for the current kernel release and
> note there are a number of warnings about un-declared functions which
> are only used for code in assembly.
> 
> I was wondering if we should just ignore those, and have either a
> new attribute for "undeclared is ok" or to make spare just ignore
> anything with the syscall_linkage attribute?

There is already an attribute and it's corresponding kernel define:
__attribute__((__externally_visible__)), aka __visible.

My point of view on the subject is more about the lines:
* who knows about __visble/externally_visible?
* what's wrong/are the disadvantge to adding the prototype?
But it seems that some maintainers are against using prototypes
for functions only used in assembly.

Cheers,
-- Luc