linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] x86/cpu: Make sure flag_is_changeable

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Zy4Ih3rW7eiyFAsJ@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2024 14:48:07 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	llvm@...ts.linux.dev, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
	Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
	Bill Wendling <morbo@...gle.com>,
	Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] x86/cpu: Make sure flag_is_changeable_p() is
 always being used

On Fri, Nov 08, 2024 at 12:50:49PM +0100, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On November 8, 2024 10:29:02 AM GMT+01:00, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> >On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 11:42:42AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >> When flag_is_changeable_p() is unused, it prevents kernel builds
> >> with clang, `make W=1` and CONFIG_WERROR=y:
> >> 
> >> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c:351:19: error: unused function 'flag_is_changeable_p' [-Werror,-Wunused-function]
> >>   351 | static inline int flag_is_changeable_p(u32 flag)
> >>       |                   ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >> 
> >> Fix this by moving core around to make sure flag_is_changeable_p() is
> >> always being used.
> >> 
> >> See also commit 6863f5643dd7 ("kbuild: allow Clang to find unused static
> >> inline functions for W=1 build").
> >
> >Any comments on this? Can it be applied?
> 
> Incidentally, this really should be "unsigned long" rather than u32, although
> I believe it is only used on 32 bits.

I can fix this in v4, does it warrant your Rb / Ack?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko