linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5.7 000/121] 5.7.13-rc2 review

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: <CAHk-=wiUEonP7tyAfYv=dja4i3b1oBtHL=KY=j8x55x3AFoZZw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 5 Aug 2020 09:51:10 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, patches@...nelci.org,
        Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk>,
        lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org,
        linux- stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.7 000/121] 5.7.13-rc2 review

On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 4:20 AM Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> I came up with yet another "quality" hack, which gets the job done,
> see below. It is obviously much simpler, but also terribly ugly.

This is effectively what the approach of commit c0842fbc1b18
("random32: move the pseudo-random 32-bit definitions to prandom.h")
was too. It has the prandom include in the middle of random.h - which
makes sense in the context of that patch (because it's where all the
prandom stuff used to live there), but the real secret is that as it
does that, it basically moves the percpu.h include down there too.

This mess has caused me to seriously look at making sparse generate a
"defined here, used here" list, and do a topo-sort on it all, and warn
about unused includes but also about stupidities like this.

But I won't have time to do that until after the merge window, and it
may turn out nastier than expected. But I did add all the include
chaining information to the sparse position logic recently in a fairly
easy to digest form, so my gut feel is that something that doesn't try
to actually optimize or solve the problem - just point out the obvious
errors - might be more reasonably doable than doing something that is
theoretically the RightThing(tm) to do.

IOW, a tool only to help find and figure these things out, rather than
a tool to do all the minimization for you automatically.

We'll see. No promises. And if somebody else beats me to it, I won't complain.

            Linus