linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] x86/boot: Don't return encryption mask from __startup

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: <20250625123517.4333-1-khaliidcaliy@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2025 12:34:21 +0000
From: Khalid Ali <khaliidcaliy@...il.com>
To: kai.huang@...el.com,
	tglx@...utronix.de,
	mingo@...hat.com,
	bp@...en8.de
Cc: x86@...nel.org,
	hpa@...or.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] x86/boot: Don't return encryption mask from __startup_64()

> Sigh... this comment is broken, since there's no '*' before the last '/'.

>Here's how I find it:
>
>So I went to see why this patch caused early boot failure, since the code
>change doesn't seem wrong to me.
>
>After staring at the code for half hour and yet unable to see any issue, I
>went to disassemble the kernel image, then I found the above two lines of
>code wasn't there at all.
>
>Then looking at this again, it's obvious that the reason is the change to
>the comment is broken, leading the above two lines of code being commented
>out.

So what i was wringling all along was the comment. I don't know why i couldn't spot it
if those two lines where commented out then even boot was supposed to fail on my side too.
I guess toolchain difference. Probably this is the reason since i compiled with gcc not clang.

Thanks though. :)

>And this patch has other style issues too like the broken indent of function
>parameters after changing returning value from 'unsigned int' to 'void', and
Could please clarify more as checkpatch.pl didn't notice it.

>So, please, before posting patches, test them, and run
>./scripts/checkpatch.pl against them.

I used it, well the tool seems broken and giving me false positive. I fixed all your suggestions and sent 
v5, as my best i could, i fixed all issues and that patch seems good. 

Could you please check it?