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: <Z6tcwg7QgQwytoSb@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2025 16:20:50 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>,
	Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
	Nuno Sá <nuno.sa@...log.com>,
	Uwe Kleine-König <ukleinek@...nel.org>,
	Michael Hennerich <Michael.Hennerich@...log.com>,
	Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
	David Jander <david@...tonic.nl>,
	Martin Sperl <kernel@...tin.sperl.org>, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
	Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 01/17] spi: add basic support for SPI offloading

On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 01:00:08PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 10:33:31PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 05:48:00PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 11:11:23AM -0600, David Lechner wrote:
> 
> > > > In this case, we specifically split up the headers so that the only time you
> > > > would ever include this header is if you need to call functions in this
> > > > namespace (i.e. struct definitions are in linux/spi/offload/types.h which
> > > > doesn't import the namespace). So this doesn't actually seem like a problem
> > > > to me.
> 
> > > Indeed - I can't see any case where a user would need the header without
> > > needing the namespace.
> 
> > You are looking from the other end. What I'm telling is that anyone who adds
> > a header, automatically gets a namespace. What's the point to have namespace
> > if it won't easily prevent from (ab)using it in the code. I consider putting
> > MODULE_IMPORT_NS() in the headers a bit weird.
> 
> Sure, but there's no case where anyone should ever be adding the header
> without adding the namespace which does rather sound like the sort of
> thing where you should just move the namespace addition to the header.

$ git grep -lw MODULE_IMPORT_NS | wc -l
651

$ git grep -lw MODULE_IMPORT_NS | grep '\.h$'

drivers/base/firmware_loader/sysfs.h
drivers/iio/adc/ltc2497.h
drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc.h
^^^ These ones are probably fine as they are not in include/

include/kunit/visibility.h
include/linux/module.h
include/linux/pwm.h

I believe these three are misuses of MODULE_IMPORT_NS(). Because one may add
a header just as a "proxy" one (copy'n'paste, for example) and we know that is
real as we saw a lot of code that has semi-random header inclusion blocks.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko



Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ