linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] profile: setup_profiling

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]

Date:   Mon, 25 Jul 2022 21:48:28 +0100
From:   Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@...ethink.co.uk>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org, openrisc@...ts.librecores.org,
        linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org, linux-hexagon@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-csky@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org, linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] profile: setup_profiling_timer() is moslty not
 implemented

On 25/07/2022 20:39, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2022 20:55:09 +0100 Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org> wrote:
> 
>> The setup_profiling_timer() is mostly un-implemented by many
>> architectures. In many places it isn't guarded by CONFIG_PROFILE
>> which is needed for it to be used. Make it a weak symbol in
>> kernel/profile.c and remove the 'return -EINVAL' implementations
>> from the kenrel.
>>
>> There are a couple of architectures which do return 0 from
>> the setup_profiling_timer() function but they don't seem to
>> do anything else with it. To keep the /proc compatibility for
>> now, leave these for a future update or removal.
>>
>> On ARM, this fixes the following sparse warning:
>> arch/arm/kernel/smp.c:793:5: warning: symbol 'setup_profiling_timer' was not declared. Should it be static?
> 
> I'll grab this.
> 
> We have had some problems with weak functions lately.  See
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/87ee0q7b92.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org/T/#u
> 
> Hopefully that was a rare corner case.

Great, thanks.

-- 
Ben Dooks				http://www.codethink.co.uk/
Senior Engineer				Codethink - Providing Genius

https://www.codethink.co.uk/privacy.html