linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 01/14] x86/sev: Rename snp_init() in the boot/compressed/sev.c file

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20240409175742.GEZhWBljxrJ8yGC3wE@fat_crate.local>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2024 19:57:42 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev, svsm-devel@...onut-svsm.dev,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
	Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>,
	Ashish Kalra <ashish.kalra@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/14] x86/sev: Rename snp_init() in the
 boot/compressed/sev.c file

On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 12:44:13PM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> When it's not static and has the name snp_init(), then it has to match the
> definition in arch/x86/include/asm/sev.h, which is really intended for the
> snp_init() in arch/x86/kernel/sev.c when called from
> arch/x86/mm/mem_encrypt_identity.c.
> 
> So, yes, changing the name would be enough except then it remains not a
> static and you can get a compiler warning about not having a prototype for
> it if the -Wmissing-prototypes option is ever applied to that file (I don't
> believe it is today because it is in the decompressor code, but that can
> change). And since nothing calls the snp_init() in
> arch/x86/boot/compressed/sev.c from outside of that file, making it static
> was appropriate.

Yes, then please remove all that text about what could potentially
happen from the commit message so that it is not confusing as to what
the situation *currently* is.

The two functions are independent right now. It is enough to say that
you want to differentiate which one is called when, in order to avoid
confusion.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette