linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] genksyms: Ignore module scoped _Static

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: <CANpmjNN3akp+Npf6tqJR44kn=85WpkRh89Z4BQtBh0nGJEiGEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 Dec 2020 17:25:30 +0100
From:   Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
To:     Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Cc:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@...aro.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] genksyms: Ignore module scoped _Static_assert()

On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 at 14:29, Miguel Ojeda
<miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 11:35 AM Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > It looks like there's no clear MAINTAINER for this. :-/
> > It'd still be good to fix this for 5.11.
>
> Richard seems to be the author, not sure if he picks patches (CC'd).
>
> I guess Masahiro or akpm (Cc'd) would be two options; otherwise, I
> could pick it up through compiler attributes (stretching the
> definition...).

Thanks for the info. I did find that there's an alternative patch to
fix _Static_assert() with genksyms that was sent 3 days after mine
(it's simpler, but might miss cases). I've responded there (
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/X9JI5KpWoo23wkRg@elver.google.com ).

Now we have some choice. I'd argue for this patch, because it's not
doing preprocessor workarounds, but in the end I won't make that call.
:-)

Thanks,
-- Marco