linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/6] bitops: wrap non-atomic bitops with a transparent macro

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:   Tue,  7 Jun 2022 12:57:18 +0200
From:   Alexander Lobakin <alexandr.lobakin@...el.com>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc:     Alexander Lobakin <alexandr.lobakin@...el.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>,
        "Andy Shevchenko" <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Richard Henderson <rth@...ddle.net>,
        Matt Turner <mattst88@...il.com>,
        Brian Cain <bcain@...cinc.com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        "Yoshinori Sato" <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
        Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        "Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org, linux-hexagon@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org, linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org,
        linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] bitops: wrap non-atomic bitops with a transparent macro

From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2022 17:27:16 +0100

> On Mon, Jun 06, 2022 at 01:49:06PM +0200, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
> > In preparation for altering the non-atomic bitops with a macro, wrap
> > them in a transparent definition. This requires prepending one more
> > '_' to their names in order to be able to do that seamlessly.
> > sparc32 already has the triple-underscored functions, so I had to
> > rename them ('___' -> 'sp32_').
> 
> Could we use an 'arch_' prefix here, like we do for the atomics, or is that
> already overloaded?

Yeah it is, for example, x86 has 'arch_' functions defined in its
architecture headers[0] and at the same time uses generic
instrumented '__' helpers[1], so on x86 both underscored and 'arch_'
are defined and they are not the same.
Same with those sparc32 triple-underscored, sparc32 at the same time
uses generic non-instrumented, so it has underscored, 'arch_' and
triple-underscored.

In general, bitops are overloaded with tons of prefixes already :)
I'm not really glad that I introduced one more level, but not that
we have many options here.

> 
> Thanks,
> Mark.
> 
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Alexander Lobakin <alexandr.lobakin@...el.com>
> > ---

[...]

> > -- 
> > 2.36.1

Thanks,
Olek