netdev - Re: [PATCH] SUNRPC: Add missing asm/cacheflush.h

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: <854D2842-6940-42BA-A48C-AE9DB48E6071@oracle.com>
Date:   Sun, 14 Jun 2020 14:57:58 -0400
From:   Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>
To:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
Cc:     Bruce Fields <bfields@...ldses.org>,
        Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...merspace.com>,
        Anna Schumaker <anna.schumaker@...app.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] SUNRPC: Add missing asm/cacheflush.h

Hi Christophe -

> On Jun 14, 2020, at 1:07 PM, Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu> wrote:
> 
> Even if that's only a warning, not including asm/cacheflush.h
> leads to svc_flush_bvec() being empty allthough powerpc defines
> ARCH_IMPLEMENTS_FLUSH_DCACHE_PAGE.
> 
>  CC      net/sunrpc/svcsock.o
> net/sunrpc/svcsock.c:227:5: warning: "ARCH_IMPLEMENTS_FLUSH_DCACHE_PAGE" is not defined [-Wundef]
> #if ARCH_IMPLEMENTS_FLUSH_DCACHE_PAGE
>     ^
> 
> Fixes: ca07eda33e01 ("SUNRPC: Refactor svc_recvfrom()")
> Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
> ---
> I detected this on linux-next on June 4th and warned Chuck. Seems like it went into mainline anyway.

Thanks for your patch. I've searched my mailbox. It appears I never
received your June 4th e-mail.

Does your patch also address:

   https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=159194369128024&w=2 ?

If so, then

   Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>

should be added to the patch description.

Ideally, compilation on x86_64 should have thrown the same warning,
but it didn't. Why would the x86_64 build behave differently than
ppc64 or i386?


> net/sunrpc/svcsock.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c b/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c
> index 5c4ec9386f81..d9e99cb09aab 100644
> --- a/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c
> +++ b/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c
> @@ -45,6 +45,7 @@
> #include <net/tcp_states.h>
> #include <linux/uaccess.h>
> #include <asm/ioctls.h>
> +#include <asm/cacheflush.h>

Nit: Let's include <linux/highmem.h> in net/sunrpc/svcsock.h instead
of <asm/cacheflush.h> directly.


> #include <linux/sunrpc/types.h>
> #include <linux/sunrpc/clnt.h>
> -- 
> 2.25.0
> 

--
Chuck Lever