linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] powerpc/papr_scm: Properly handle UUID types and API

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: <CAHp75VcPANL+LBTxy2V8f2Ksy=FJmdbU1=r60KKO7YSUf9BCLg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 15 Apr 2021 20:18:49 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Vaibhav Jain <vaibhav@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        "open list:LINUX FOR POWERPC PA SEMI PWRFICIENT" 
        <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        "Oliver O'Halloran" <oohall@...il.com>,
        "Aneesh Kumar K . V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] powerpc/papr_scm: Properly handle UUID types and API

On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 8:10 PM Vaibhav Jain <vaibhav@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>
> Thanks for the patch Andy,
>
> Unfortunately ran into a compilation issue due to missing "#include
> <asm/unaligned.h>" that provides definition for
> get_unaligned_le64(). Gcc reported following error:
>
> error: implicit declaration of function ‘get_unaligned_le64’

Right, I have not tested it (as mentioned in the comments to the patch)

> After including the necessary header file, kernel compiled fine and I
> was able to test & verify the patch.

Thank you very much for the testing.

I'm not sure what the coverage of your test is. That's why I have an
additional question below. Is the byte ordering kept the same in BE
(32- and 64-bit) cases? Because I'm worrying that I might have missed
something.


-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko