linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] x86: Parse CONFIG

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: <d783442602a1c546d3727b939f5cd199@ispras.ru>
Date:   Wed, 25 May 2022 08:25:30 +0300
From:   baskov@...ras.ru
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] x86: Parse CONFIG_CMDLINE in compressed kernel

On 2022-05-12 14:21, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, May 05, 2022 at 01:32:24PM +0300, Baskov Evgeniy wrote:
> 
> Same note on the subject format as for your previous patch.
> 

Thanks.

>> CONFIG_CMDLINE, CONFIG_CMDLINE_BOOL, and CONFIG_CMDLINE_OVERRIDE were
>> ignored during options lookup in compressed kernel.
>> 
>> Parse CONFIG_CMDLINE-related options correctly in compressed kernel
>> code.
>> 
>> cmd_line_ptr_init is explicitly placed in .data section since it is
>> used and expected to be equal to zero before .bss section is cleared.
> 
> What I'm missing in this commit message is the use case which you have
> in your 0/2 mail.
> 
> Also, to the tone of your commit messages, from
> Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst:
> 
>  "Describe your changes in imperative mood, e.g. "make xyzzy do frotz"
>   instead of "[This patch] makes xyzzy do frotz" or "[I] changed xyzzy
>   to do frotz", as if you are giving orders to the codebase to change
>   its behaviour."
> 
> Also, do not talk about what your patch does - that should hopefully be
> visible in the diff itself. Rather, talk about *why* you're doing what
> you're doing.
> 

Will fix.

> 
> I had asked this already but let me try again: instead of copying this
> from kernel proper, why don't you add a common helper which you call
> from both locations?
> 
> And it is not like this is going to be a huge function so you can stick
> it into a shared header in arch/x86/include/asm/shared/ and it'll get
> inlined into both locations...

Oh, now I got what you meant, I'll factor that out in the next version.
There are currently no arch/x86/include/asm/shared/ directory,
so, I guess, it will be OK to put the header just in
arch/x86/include/asm/?

--
Baskov Evgeniy