linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] objtool: Enable compilation of objtool for all architectures

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: <20200519214637.GS9040@rlwimi.vmware.com>
Date:   Tue, 19 May 2020 14:46:37 -0700
From:   Matt Helsley <mhelsley@...are.com>
To:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
CC:     <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Julien Thierry <jthierry@...hat.com>,
        Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] objtool: Enable compilation of objtool for all
 architectures

On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 04:18:29PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 01:55:33PM -0700, Matt Helsley wrote:
> > +const char __attribute__ ((weak)) *objname;
> > +
> > +int missing_check(const char *_objname, bool orc)
> > +{
> > +	return 127;
> > +}
> > +
> > +int __attribute__ ((weak, alias("missing_check"))) check(const char *_objname, bool orc);
> > +
> > +int missing_orc_dump(const char *_objname)
> > +{
> > +	return 127;
> > +}
> > +
> > +int __attribute__ ((weak, alias("missing_orc_dump"))) orc_dump(const char *_objname);
> > +
> > +int __attribute__ ((weak)) create_orc(struct objtool_file *file)
> > +{
> > +	return 127;
> > +}
> > +
> > +int __attribute__ ((weak)) create_orc_sections(struct objtool_file *file)
> > +{
> > +	return 127;
> > +}
> 
> I think the aliased "missing_" functions are no longer needed, right?
> i.e. can we just have weak versions of check() and orc_dump()?

Oops, Yeah, we can remove those aliases. I can fix and resend this one if you
like. 

> Otherwise everything looks good to me.

Excellent. I'm thinking I'll get the relocs patches posted as an RFC next...

Cheers,
	-Matt