linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: undef REG_IN/REG

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]

Date:   Wed, 30 Mar 2022 18:54:52 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc:     Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@...libre.com>, tglx@...utronix.de,
        mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
        hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: undef REG_IN/REG_OUT to avoid define collisions

On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 08:33:26AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 3/30/22 08:28, Neil Armstrong wrote:
> > These defines are only used in the inline functions declared
> > in the arch_hweight.h file, and collides with internal defines
> > of the Amlogic Mes pinctrl driver when COMPILE_TEST is enabled:
> > 
> > arch/x86/include/asm/arch_hweight.h:9:17: error: expected identifier before string constant
> > 9 | #define REG_OUT "a"
> >   |                 ^~~
> > drivers/pinctrl/meson/pinctrl-meson.h:69:9: note: in expansion of macro ‘REG_OUT’
> > 69 |         REG_OUT,

Thanks for the patch!

> > Reported-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@...libre.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/x86/include/asm/arch_hweight.h | 3 +++
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/arch_hweight.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/arch_hweight.h
> > index ba88edd0d58b..139a4b0a2a14 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/arch_hweight.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/arch_hweight.h
> > @@ -52,4 +52,7 @@ static __always_inline unsigned long __arch_hweight64(__u64 w)
> >  }
> >  #endif /* CONFIG_X86_32 */
> >  
> > +#undef REG_IN
> > +#undef REG_OUT
> 
> Wouldn't it be a bit less hackish to give these a more qualified name
> like HWEIGHT_REG_IN?

Either way, would it be good to undef them here anyway?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko