linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] x86/hyperv: Mark hv_ghcb

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: <ef2b7503-1023-67c1-3b06-87d611472d22@igalia.com>
Date:   Fri, 17 Mar 2023 13:04:39 -0300
From:   "Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli@...lia.com>
To:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
        "Michael Kelley (LINUX)" <mikelley@...rosoft.com>
Cc:     "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>,
        Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
        KY Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.com>,
        "wei.liu@...nel.org" <wei.liu@...nel.org>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
        "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "thomas.lendacky@....com" <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "kernel-dev@...lia.com" <kernel-dev@...lia.com>,
        "kernel@...ccoli.net" <kernel@...ccoli.net>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/hyperv: Mark hv_ghcb_terminate() as noreturn

On 17/03/2023 11:53, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> [...]
>>> Hi Michael / Josh (and all), lemme know if you want me to submit a V3
>>> doing that. The function is not called inside this own definition file
>>> nor exported, so I'm not sure that'd be necessary, but glad to do so if
>>> you prefer.
>>>
>>
>> I don't have a preference.  I was just trying to make sure the details
>> are all correct.  I'll defer to those with more knowledge of the
>> __noreturn attribute than I have.
> 
> It's not required, but probably good practice to put __noreturn in both
> places to make it more self-documenting.
> 

Thanks Josh and Michael, will submit a V3 shortly with this improvement!
Cheers,


Guilherme