linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] pwm: Add missing "CONFIG

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: <2f93895709e5837c3b6f38a753057505a9d48ac4.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Thu, 04 Jun 2020 21:07:46 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     Uwe Kleine-König 
        <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pwm: Add missing "CONFIG_" prefix

On Thu, 2020-06-04 at 14:52 -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 04:04:31PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Wed, 2020-06-03 at 15:40 -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > The IS_ENABLED() use was missing the CONFIG_ prefix which would have
> > > lead to skipping this code.
> > > 
> > > Fixes: 3ad1f3a33286 ("pwm: Implement some checks for lowlevel drivers")
> > > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/pwm/core.c | 2 +-
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/core.c b/drivers/pwm/core.c
> > > index 9973c442b455..6b3cbc0490c6 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/pwm/core.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/pwm/core.c
> > > @@ -121,7 +121,7 @@ static int pwm_device_request(struct pwm_device *pwm, const char *label)
> > >  		pwm->chip->ops->get_state(pwm->chip, pwm, &pwm->state);
> > >  		trace_pwm_get(pwm, &pwm->state);
> > >  
> > > -		if (IS_ENABLED(PWM_DEBUG))
> > > +		if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PWM_DEBUG))
> > >  			pwm->last = pwm->state;
> > >  	}
> > >  
> > > -- 
> > > 2.25.1
> > > 
> > 
> > more odd uses (mostly in comments)
> > 
> > $ git grep -P -oh '\bIS_ENABLED\s*\(\s*\w+\s*\)'| \
> >   sed -r 's/\s+//g'| \
> >   grep -v '(CONFIG_' | \
> >   sort | uniq -c | sort -rn
> >       7 IS_ENABLED(DEBUG)
> >       4 IS_ENABLED(DRM_I915_SELFTEST)
> >       4 IS_ENABLED(cfg)
> >       2 IS_ENABLED(opt_name)
> >       2 IS_ENABLED(DEBUG_PRINT_TRIE_GRAPHVIZ)
> >       2 IS_ENABLED(config)
> >       2 IS_ENABLED(cond)
> >       2 IS_ENABLED(__BIG_ENDIAN)
> >       1 IS_ENABLED(x)
> >       1 IS_ENABLED(STRICT_KERNEL_RWX)
> >       1 IS_ENABLED(PWM_DEBUG)
> >       1 IS_ENABLED(option)
> >       1 IS_ENABLED(ETHTOOL_NETLINK)
> >       1 IS_ENABLED(DEBUG_RANDOM_TRIE)
> >       1 IS_ENABLED(DEBUG_CHACHA20POLY1305_SLOW_CHUNK_TEST)
> > 
> > STRICT_KERNEL_RWX is misused here in ppc
> > 
> > ---
> > 
> > Fix pr_warn without newline too.
> > 
> >  arch/powerpc/mm/book3s64/hash_utils.c | 5 ++---
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/book3s64/hash_utils.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/book3s64/hash_utils.c
> > index 51e3c15f7aff..dd60c5f2b991 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/book3s64/hash_utils.c
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/book3s64/hash_utils.c
> > @@ -660,11 +660,10 @@ static void __init htab_init_page_sizes(void)
> >  		 * Pick a size for the linear mapping. Currently, we only
> >  		 * support 16M, 1M and 4K which is the default
> >  		 */
> > -		if (IS_ENABLED(STRICT_KERNEL_RWX) &&
> > +		if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_STRICT_KERNEL_RWX) &&
> >  		    (unsigned long)_stext % 0x1000000) {
> >  			if (mmu_psize_defs[MMU_PAGE_16M].shift)
> > -				pr_warn("Kernel not 16M aligned, "
> > -					"disabling 16M linear map alignment");
> > +				pr_warn("Kernel not 16M aligned, disabling 16M linear map alignment\n");
> >  			aligned = false;
> >  		}
> 
> Joe, I was going to send all of the fixes for these issues, but your
> patch doesn't have a SoB. Shall I add one for the above patch?

<shrug> sure if you want, or submit it yourself.

My feeling about these types of changes is the maintainers
of the subsystems, in this case ppc, should manage this
themselves and shouldn't require anyone else to actually
bother to send real patches.