linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next] powerpc: kernel/time.c

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: <3f4d196b-0a8e-d4c9-cabe-591f5916a2b9@csgroup.eu>
Date:   Wed, 17 Mar 2021 12:16:26 +0100
From:   Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
To:     He Ying <heying24@...wei.com>, mpe@...erman.id.au,
        benh@...nel.crashing.org, paulus@...ba.org, npiggin@...il.com,
        msuchanek@...e.de, peterz@...radead.org, geert+renesas@...der.be,
        kernelfans@...il.com, frederic@...nel.org
Cc:     linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] powerpc: kernel/time.c - cleanup warnings



Le 17/03/2021 à 11:34, He Ying a écrit :
> We found these warnings in arch/powerpc/kernel/time.c as follows:
> warning: symbol 'decrementer_max' was not declared. Should it be static?
> warning: symbol 'rtc_lock' was not declared. Should it be static?
> warning: symbol 'dtl_consumer' was not declared. Should it be static?
> 
> Declare 'decrementer_max' in arch/powerpc/include/asm/time.h. And include
> proper header in which 'rtc_lock' is declared. Move 'dtl_consumer'
> definition behind "include <asm/dtl.h>" because 'dtl_consumer' is declared
> there.
> 
> Reported-by: Hulk Robot <hulkci@...wei.com>
> Signed-off-by: He Ying <heying24@...wei.com>
> ---
>   arch/powerpc/include/asm/time.h | 1 +
>   arch/powerpc/kernel/time.c      | 7 +++----
>   2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/time.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/time.h
> index 8dd3cdb25338..2cd2b50bedda 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/time.h
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/time.h
> @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ extern unsigned long tb_ticks_per_jiffy;
>   extern unsigned long tb_ticks_per_usec;
>   extern unsigned long tb_ticks_per_sec;
>   extern struct clock_event_device decrementer_clockevent;
> +extern u64 decrementer_max;
>   
>   
>   extern void generic_calibrate_decr(void);
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/time.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/time.c
> index b67d93a609a2..409967713ca6 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/time.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/time.c
> @@ -55,6 +55,7 @@
>   #include <linux/sched/cputime.h>
>   #include <linux/sched/clock.h>
>   #include <linux/processor.h>
> +#include <linux/mc146818rtc.h>

I don't think that's the good place. It has no link to powerpc, it is only by chance that it has the 
same name.

As rtc_lock is defined in powerpc time.c, I think you should declare it in powerpc asm/time.h


>   #include <asm/trace.h>
>   
>   #include <asm/interrupt.h>
> @@ -150,10 +151,6 @@ bool tb_invalid;
>   u64 __cputime_usec_factor;
>   EXPORT_SYMBOL(__cputime_usec_factor);
>   
> -#ifdef CONFIG_PPC_SPLPAR
> -void (*dtl_consumer)(struct dtl_entry *, u64);
> -#endif
> -
>   static void calc_cputime_factors(void)
>   {
>   	struct div_result res;
> @@ -179,6 +176,8 @@ static inline unsigned long read_spurr(unsigned long tb)
>   
>   #include <asm/dtl.h>
>   
> +void (*dtl_consumer)(struct dtl_entry *, u64);
> +
>   /*
>    * Scan the dispatch trace log and count up the stolen time.
>    * Should be called with interrupts disabled.
>