linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rcu: add declarations of undeclared items

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: <7acbcc9b901304f8f55cc1cece802785@codethink.co.uk>
Date:   Mon, 14 Oct 2019 08:16:58 +0100
From:   Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@...ethink.co.uk>
To:     paulmck@...nel.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@...ts.codethink.co.uk,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>, rcu@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: add declarations of undeclared items



On 2019-10-12 05:44, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 06:08:24PM +0100, Ben Dooks wrote:
>> The rcu_state, rcu_rnp_online_cpus and rcu_dynticks_curr_cpu_in_eqs
>> do not have declarations in a header. Add these to remove the
>> following sparse warnings:
>> 
>> kernel/rcu/tree.c:87:18: warning: symbol 'rcu_state' was not declared. 
>> Should it be static?
>> kernel/rcu/tree.c:191:15: warning: symbol 'rcu_rnp_online_cpus' was 
>> not declared. Should it be static?
>> kernel/rcu/tree.c:297:6: warning: symbol 
>> 'rcu_dynticks_curr_cpu_in_eqs' was not declared. Should it be static?
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@...ethink.co.uk>
> 
> Good catch!
> 
> However, these guys (plus one more) are actually used only in the
> kernel/rcu/tree.o translation unit, so they can be marked static.
> I made this change as shown below with your Reported-by.
> 
> Seem reasonable?

yes, thanks.