linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] MIPS: Explicitly check 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2502122111330.65342@angie.orcam.me.uk>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 21:36:02 +0000 (GMT)
From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...am.me.uk>
To: WangYuli <wangyuli@...ontech.com>
cc: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>, 
    linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
    masahiroy@...nel.org, jiaxun.yang@...goat.com, zhanjun@...ontech.com, 
    guanwentao@...ontech.com, Chen Linxuan <chenlinxuan@...ontech.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] MIPS: Explicitly check KBUILD_SYM32=n

On Wed, 12 Feb 2025, WangYuli wrote:

> There are expression and spelling errors in my commit message and code
> comments, necessitating a patch v2 for corrections, is that right?

 These are semantic errors, yes.

 Also I find:

Fixes: 805b2e1d427a ("kbuild: include Makefile.compiler only when compiler is needed")

invalid here, as your change does not address an issue introduced with 
said commit.  It does fix mine, when it comes to LLVM support, so I think 
instead it has to be:

Fixes: a79a404e6c22 ("MIPS: Fix CONFIG_CPU_DADDI_WORKAROUNDS `modules_install' regression")

And if you want it backported, then you need to swap the order of the 
changes or discard 1/2 altogether, as that is syntactic noise only and 
clearly not a fix.

 Apologies not to point these issues out in the previous message.

> As for whether to check need-compiler or KBUILD_SYM32 in the code, the effect
> is essentially the same, correct?

 No, code has to express intent and the intent here is not to fiddle with 
the compilation flags when no compiler is going to be used.  And this 
purpose is served by the `need-compiler' setting; anything else is code 
obfuscation and a workaround at best.  And the very need to add a comment 
has made it very obvious already: the best code is self-explanatory and 
the use of `need-compiler' is a common idiom, obviating the need for a 
comment here.

 Have I made myself clear here?

  Maciej