linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v4] checkpatch: Check for .byte-spelled insn opcodes documentation on x86

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: <73e18a141df7a9259ef47363152bc2595b00bda4.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Mon, 12 Oct 2020 10:40:07 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v4] checkpatch: Check for .byte-spelled insn opcodes
 documentation on x86

On Mon, 2020-10-12 at 19:31 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 10:17:56AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > Workie here.  This is against -next.
> 
> Nevermind - I had an old version in that branch.
> 
> What I mind to, however, is:
> 
> "adding a mechanism to only emit the message once per patched file (Joe)"
> 
> This needs to happen for every .byte line which doesn't have a comment
> documenting the binutils version.

Why?  I think it unnecessary.
It's noisy and would also be duplicative in the code.

/* binutils version x.y */
#define __ASM_CLAC	".byte 0x0f,0x01,0xca"
#define __ASM_STAC	".byte 0x0f,0x01,0xcb"

Both should not need separate binutils version info
if added in a patch context.