linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 1/7] bits: split the definition of the asm and non-asm GENMASK()

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: <8e11c217-67a7-4633-849d-7b2918337284@wanadoo.fr>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2025 01:14:23 +0900
From: Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr>
To: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
 Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@...el.com>,
 Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
 Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
 Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com>,
 Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>, Tvrtko Ursulin
 <tursulin@...ulin.net>, David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
 Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
 dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...ux.intel.com>,
 David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
 Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/7] bits: split the definition of the asm and non-asm
 GENMASK()

On 19/03/2025 at 01:06, Yury Norov wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 08, 2025 at 06:10:25PM +0900, Vincent Mailhol wrote:
>> On 08/03/2025 at 02:42, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Sat, Mar 08, 2025 at 01:48:48AM +0900, Vincent Mailhol via B4 Relay wrote:
>>>> From: Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr>
>>>>
>>>> In an upcoming change, GENMASK() and its friends will indirectly
>>>> depend on sizeof() which is not available in asm.
>>>>
>>>> Instead of adding further complexity to __GENMASK() to make it work
>>>> for both asm and non asm, just split the definition of the two
>>>> variants.
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> -/*
>>>> - * BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO is not available in h files included from asm files,
>>>> - * disable the input check if that is the case.
>>>> - */
>>>
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO() is not available in h files included from asm files, so
>>>> + * no input checks in assembly.
>>>> + */
>>>
>>> In case of a new version I would reformat this as
>>>
>>> /*
>>>  * BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO() is not available in h files included from asm files,
>>>  * so no input checks in assembly.
>>>  */
>>>
>>> It makes easier to review the changes and see that the first line is kept
>>> the same.
>>
>> Not fully convinced, but why not. I staged this change locally, it will
>> be in v7.
> 
> I don't understand why this change is needed at all. The comment
> states the same thing before and after, but the history gets wiped.
> Maybe just don't touch it?

Ack. I will just move the text down and not rephrase.


Yours sincerely,
Vincent Mailhol