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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 11:26:33 -0700 From: Matt Helsley <mhelsley@...are.com> To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> CC: Julien Thierry <jthierry@...hat.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/5] objtool: Enable compilation of objtool for all architectures On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 03:51:35PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 05:55:31PM +0100, Julien Thierry wrote: > > > > Since the stuff under arch/missing is only weak symbols to make up for > > > > missing subcmd implementations, can we put everything in a file > > > > subcmd_defaults.c (name up for debate!) that would be always be compiled an > > > > linked. And some SUBCMD_XXX is set to "y", the corresponding object file > > > > gets compiled and overrides the weak symbols from subcmd_defaults.c . > > > > > > Hmm, I like keeping them separated along similar lines to the other > > > code because it makes it easier to see the intended correspondence and > > > likely will keep the files more readable / smaller. I could > > > just move them out of arch/missing and into missing_check.c and so forth. > > > > > > What do you think of that? > > > > > > > I do prefer that to the introduction of an arch/missing. > > > > Still, I'm not sure I see much benefit in splitting those small > > implementations in separate files, but it's not a problem either. This seems > > more a matter of taste rather than one approach working better than the > > other. So it's more up to what the maintainer prefer! :) > > For now I'd prefer getting rid of the 'missing' arch and just having a > single top-level weak.c which has all the weak functions in it. Keeps > the clutter down :-) > > Down the road, if the number of weak functions got out of hand then we > could look at splitting them up into multiple files. OK, I'll merge them all into weak.c Thanks! Cheers, -Matt Helsley
Powered by blists - more mailing lists