netdev - Re: [PATCH 0/3] net: ethernet: atheros: atlx: Use PCI generic definitions instead of private duplicates

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]

Date:   Fri, 21 Jun 2019 11:33:27 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
Cc:     Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@...il.com>,
        Jay Cliburn <jcliburn@...il.com>,
        Chris Snook <chris.snook@...il.com>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn@...gaas.com>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
        Linux PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] net: ethernet: atheros: atlx: Use PCI generic
 definitions instead of private duplicates

On Fri, 2019-06-21 at 13:12 -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 12:27 PM Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
[]
> > Subsystem specific local PCI #defines without generic
> > naming is poor style and makes treewide grep and
> > refactoring much more difficult.
> 
> Don't worry, we have the same objectives.  I totally agree that local
> #defines are a bad thing, which is why I proposed this project in the
> first place.

Hi again Bjorn.

I didn't know that was your idea.  Good idea.

> I'm just saying that this is a "first-patch" sort of learning project
> and I think it'll avoid some list spamming and discouragement if we
> can figure out the scope and shake out some of the teething problems
> ahead of time.  I don't want to end up with multiple versions of
> dozens of little 2-3 patch series posted every week or two.

Great, that's sensible.

> I'd rather be able to deal with a whole block of them at one time.

Also very sensible.

> > 2: Show that you compiled the object files and verified
> >    where possible that there are no object file changes.
> 
> Do you have any pointers for the best way to do this?  Is it as simple
> as comparing output of "objdump -d"?

Generically, yes.

I have a little script that does the equivalent of:

<git reset>
make <foo.o>
mv <foo.o> <foo.o>.old
patch -P1 < <foo_patch>
make <foo.o>
mv <foo.o> <foo.o>.new
diff -urN <(objdump -d <foo.o>.old) <(objdump -d <foo.o>.new)

But it's not foolproof as gcc does not guarantee
compilation repeatability.

And some subsystems Makefiles do not allow per-file
compilation.