[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK7LNASQyyi0bOTLdmyhCwFg2PWPWq234ypVZnNkwLamoCAAmw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2021 23:31:27 +0900
From: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>
To: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>
Cc: "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ux.microsoft.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] x86/syscalls: fix -Wmissing-prototypes warnings from COND_SYSCALL()
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 8:48 PM Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Masahiro,
>
> What is the status of this patch? Could you please push it to -next?
> This would avoid emails from lkp:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-security-module/202103191423.Jl0jVzfL-lkp@intel.com/
Hmm, I also want to know the answer.
This is the *third* time that I resent this patch
to the x86 ML.
This is a territory of the x86 subsystem
because it is only touching
arch/x86/include/asm/syscall_wrapper.h
It is preferred to get this in via the x86 tree.
x86 Maintainers,
could you take a look please?
> Thanks,
> Mickaël
>
> On 01/03/2021 14:15, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > Building kernel/sys_ni.c with W=1 emits tons of -Wmissing-prototypes
> > warnings.
> >
> > $ make W=1 kernel/sys_ni.o
> > [ snip ]
> > CC kernel/sys_ni.o
> > In file included from kernel/sys_ni.c:10:
> > ./arch/x86/include/asm/syscall_wrapper.h:83:14: warning: no previous prototype for '__x64_sys_io_setup' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
> > 83 | __weak long __##abi##_##name(const struct pt_regs *__unused) \
> > | ^~
> > ./arch/x86/include/asm/syscall_wrapper.h:100:2: note: in expansion of macro '__COND_SYSCALL'
> > 100 | __COND_SYSCALL(x64, sys_##name)
> > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > ./arch/x86/include/asm/syscall_wrapper.h:256:2: note: in expansion of macro '__X64_COND_SYSCALL'
> > 256 | __X64_COND_SYSCALL(name) \
> > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > kernel/sys_ni.c:39:1: note: in expansion of macro 'COND_SYSCALL'
> > 39 | COND_SYSCALL(io_setup);
> > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~
> > ./arch/x86/include/asm/syscall_wrapper.h:83:14: warning: no previous prototype for '__ia32_sys_io_setup' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
> > 83 | __weak long __##abi##_##name(const struct pt_regs *__unused) \
> > | ^~
> > ./arch/x86/include/asm/syscall_wrapper.h:120:2: note: in expansion of macro '__COND_SYSCALL'
> > 120 | __COND_SYSCALL(ia32, sys_##name)
> > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > ./arch/x86/include/asm/syscall_wrapper.h:257:2: note: in expansion of macro '__IA32_COND_SYSCALL'
> > 257 | __IA32_COND_SYSCALL(name)
> > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > kernel/sys_ni.c:39:1: note: in expansion of macro 'COND_SYSCALL'
> > 39 | COND_SYSCALL(io_setup);
> > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~
> > ...
> >
> > __SYS_STUB0() and __SYS_STUBx() defined a few lines above have forward
> > declarations. Let's do likewise for __COND_SYSCALL() to fix the
> > warnings.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>
> > Tested-by: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ux.microsoft.com>
> > ---
> >
> > arch/x86/include/asm/syscall_wrapper.h | 1 +
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/syscall_wrapper.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/syscall_wrapper.h
> > index a84333adeef2..80c08c7d5e72 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/syscall_wrapper.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/syscall_wrapper.h
> > @@ -80,6 +80,7 @@ extern long __ia32_sys_ni_syscall(const struct pt_regs *regs);
> > }
> >
> > #define __COND_SYSCALL(abi, name) \
> > + __weak long __##abi##_##name(const struct pt_regs *__unused); \
> > __weak long __##abi##_##name(const struct pt_regs *__unused) \
> > { \
> > return sys_ni_syscall(); \
> >
--
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada
Powered by blists - more mailing lists