linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: Don't declare __force_order in kaslr

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:   Tue, 18 Feb 2020 03:38:54 -0800
From:   "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
        Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Don't declare __force_order in kaslr_64.c

On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 2:45 AM Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 10:44:30AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > This updated patch fixed a typo in Subject: "care" -> "declare".
> >
> > From c8c26194cf5a344cd53763eaaf16c3ab609736f4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>
> > Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 12:46:51 -0800
> > Subject: [PATCH] x86: Don't declare __force_order in kaslr_64.c
> >
> > GCC 10 changed the default to -fno-common, which leads to
> >
> >   LD      arch/x86/boot/compressed/vmlinux
> > ld: arch/x86/boot/compressed/pgtable_64.o:(.bss+0x0): multiple definition of `__force_order'; arch/x86/boot/compressed/kaslr_64.o:(.bss+0x0): first defined here
> > make[2]: *** [arch/x86/boot/compressed/Makefile:119: arch/x86/boot/compressed/vmlinux] Error 1
> >
> > Since __force_order is already provided in pgtable_64.c, there is no
> > need to declare __force_order in kaslr_64.c.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@...il.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>
>
> What is Yu-cheng's SOB supposed to mean here?
>
> The only case where it would make sense is if he's sending this patch
> but he isn't. So what's up?
>

I wrote this patch as the part of the previous CET patch set Yu-cheng submitted.
Since this is a standalone patch, he asked me to send it separately.  I didn't
remove Yu-cheng's SOB when I submitted this patch.

-- 
H.J.