linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] mips: cm: Add CM GCR and L2-sync base address getters declarations

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: <pf6cvzper4g5364nqhd4wd2pmlkyygoymobeqduulpslcjhyy6@kf66z7chjbl3>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 13:38:30 +0300
From: Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@...il.com>
To: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, 
	Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, 
	Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@...goat.com>, Alexey Malahov <Alexey.Malahov@...kalelectronics.ru>, 
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...hwell.id.au>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, 
	linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] mips: cm: Add CM GCR and L2-sync base address
 getters declarations

On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 10:06:33AM +0100, Thomas Bogendoerfer wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 09:39:58PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 06:24:25PM +0100, Thomas Bogendoerfer wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 08:17:27PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> > > > Based on the design pattern utilized in the CM GCR and L2-sync base
> > > > address getters implementation the platform-specific code is capable to
> > > > re-define the getters and re-use the weakly defined initial versions. But
> > > > since the re-definition is supposed to be done in another source file the
> > > > interface methods have been globally defined which in its turn causes the
> > > > "no previous prototype" warning printed should the re-definition is
> > > > finally introduced. Since without the global declarations the pattern can
> > > > be considered as incomplete and causing the warning printed, fix it by
> > > > providing the respective methods prototype declarations in
> > > > "arch/mips/include/asm/mips-cm.h".
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@...il.com>
> > > > 
> > > > ---
> > > > 
> > > > Note as I mentioned in the previous patch, since the weak implementation
> > > > of the getters isn't utilized other than as a default implementation of
> > > > the original methods, we can convert the denoted pattern to a simple
> > > > __weak attributed methods. Let me know if that would be more preferable.
> > > 
> > 
> > > how about simply remove __mips_cm_l2sync_phys_base() and do everything
> > > via mips_cm_phys_base(). And at the moment without anyone overriding
> > > mips_cm_phys_base I tend to keep static without __weak. If someone
> > > needs, we can change it. Does this make sense ?
> > 
> > To be honest my arch code (not submitted yet) do override the
> > mips_cm_l2sync_phys_base() method. The memory just behind the CM2
> 
> that's fine, I just wanted to know a reason for having it provided as
> weak symbol.
> 
> > What about instead of that I'll just convert both mips_cm_phys_base()
> > and mips_cm_l2sync_phys_base() to being defined with the underscored
> > methods body and assign the __weak attribute to them?
> 
> works for me ;-) I'll pick patch 3/4 of this series, so no need to
> resend them.

Ok. Thanks. I'll submit the respective patch(es) in a several days.

-Serge(y)

> 
> Thomas.
> 
> -- 
> Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a
> good idea.                                                [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]