linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] alpha: Use absolute_pointer for strcmp on fixed memory location

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHk-=wi11WAHpJi8KDbbp7FGcqnfkB3r6TZqnZeOKvfYGCOsaQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 12 Sep 2021 15:58:37 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc:     Richard Henderson <rth@...ddle.net>,
        Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@...assic.park.msu.ru>,
        Matt Turner <mattst88@...il.com>,
        "James E . J . Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
        Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        alpha <linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sparse Mailing-list <linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] alpha: Use absolute_pointer for strcmp on fixed
 memory location

On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 1:37 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
>
> COMMAND_LINE is, for whatever reason, defined in
> arch/alpha/include/uapi/asm/setup.h, ie in the uapi.
>
> Can I even touch that ?

I think that's entirely a historical accident.

Note how most of those #define's don't even work for user space
because they use PAGE_OFFSET, which is defined in <asm/page.h>. And
others depend on the kernel config system.

There's a couple that do seem to be potentially for user space (MILO
bootloader), and who knows just what hacks that code might have with
internal knowledge of this header file. But anything I can find on the
net seems to predate our move to 'uapi' headers, so I wouldn't really
worry about it.

So I'd suggest just moving that whole file back to <asm/setup.h>,
changing it as necessary, and then seeing if anybody notices.

Because I suspect the answer to that is just crickets chirping..

              Linus