linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 8/8] coresight: Remove unused stubs

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: <4eef0b8d-3702-429b-bf9b-50e176498833@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2024 14:00:52 +0000
From: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>
To: James Clark <james.clark@....com>, coresight@...ts.linaro.org
Cc: Mike Leach <mike.leach@...aro.org>,
 Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
 Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
 Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] coresight: Remove unused stubs

On 09/01/2024 16:48, James Clark wrote:
> 
> 
> On 09/01/2024 10:38, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
>> Hi James
>>
>> On 12/12/2023 15:54, James Clark wrote:
>>> These are a bit annoying to keep up to date when the function signatures
>>> change. But if CONFIG_CORESIGHT isn't enabled, then they're not used
>>> anyway so just delete them.
>>>
>>
>> Have you tried building an arm32 kernel with this change in ? Looks like
>> arch/arm/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c includes linux/coresight.h and a build
>> with CONFIG_CORSIGHT=n might break the build ? So is
> 
> arm32 and CONFIG_CORESIGHT=n works because hw_breakpoint.c doesn't use
> any of those symbols, only #defines that were outside the #if
> IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CORESIGHT), specifically CORESIGHT_UNLOCK.
> 
>> drivers/accel/habanalabs/common/habanalabs.h. Now, I am not sure if they
> 
> habanalabs is interesting, it depends on X86_64, but CONFIG_CORESIGHT
> depends on ARM || ARM64, so I think we can assume it's also only looking
> for #defines and inlines, and not actual code.
> 
> Either way I can't find any build config that actually ever built this,
> meaning it's always been dead code. I would have expected some build
> robot to have flagged an error by now as I've seen that on other
> coresight patches.
> 
>> really need it (even if they do, we may be able to remove the dependency
>> on the header file.
>>
> 
> They do really need it, also for the CORESIGHT_UNLOCK definition, but
> not any functions.

Thanks for checking this.

Suzuki