linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 07/31] kbuild: Remove "kmod" prefix from __KBUILD

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: <20240904075315.GC4723@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2024 09:53:15 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>
Cc: live-patching@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	x86@...nel.org, Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>,
	Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
	Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>,
	Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
	Marcos Paulo de Souza <mpdesouza@...e.com>,
	Song Liu <song@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 07/31] kbuild: Remove "kmod" prefix from __KBUILD_MODNAME

On Tue, Sep 03, 2024 at 07:11:24PM -0700, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 03, 2024 at 09:58:13AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 02, 2024 at 08:59:50PM -0700, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > Remove the arbitrary "kmod" prefix from __KBUILD_MODNAME and add it back
> > > manually in the __initcall_id() macro.
> > > 
> > > This makes it more consistent, now __KBUILD_MODNAME is just the
> > > non-stringified version of KBUILD_MODNAME.  It will come in handy for
> > > the upcoming "objtool klp diff".
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>
> > > ---
> > >  include/linux/init.h | 3 ++-
> > >  scripts/Makefile.lib | 2 +-
> > >  2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/init.h b/include/linux/init.h
> > > index 58cef4c2e59a..b1921f4a7b7e 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/init.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/init.h
> > > @@ -206,12 +206,13 @@ extern struct module __this_module;
> > >  
> > >  /* Format: <modname>__<counter>_<line>_<fn> */
> > >  #define __initcall_id(fn)					\
> > > +	__PASTE(kmod_,						\
> > >  	__PASTE(__KBUILD_MODNAME,				\
> > >  	__PASTE(__,						\
> > >  	__PASTE(__COUNTER__,					\
> > >  	__PASTE(_,						\
> > >  	__PASTE(__LINE__,					\
> > > -	__PASTE(_, fn))))))
> > > +	__PASTE(_, fn)))))))
> > 
> > :-(
> 
> Yeah, I was just keeping the existing format here.
> 
> But actually, I strongly prefer it compared to this:
> 
> /* Format: <modname>__<counter>_<line>_<fn> */
> #define __initcall_id(fn)						\
> 	__PASTE(kmod_,							\
> 		__PASTE(__KBUILD_MODNAME,				\
> 			__PASTE(__,					\
> 				__PASTE(__COUNTER__,			\
> 					__PASTE(_,			\
> 						__PASTE(__LINE__,	\
> 							__PASTE(_, fn)))))))
> 
> That gives headaches.  Sure, the vertically aligned version is a bit
> unorthodox but it *much* easier to read if you know how to read it: just
> scan down.
> 
> And the "Format:" comment at the top clarifies the result.

Yeah, I suppose you're right.