netdev - Re: [PATCH net v3] net: Force inlining of checksum functions in net/checksum.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]

Date:   Fri, 18 Feb 2022 08:29:20 -0800
From:   Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To:     Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc:     Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v3] net: Force inlining of checksum functions in
 net/checksum.h

On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 06:12:37 -0600
Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 10:35:48AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 3:10 AM Segher Boessenkool
> > <segher@...nel.crashing.org> wrote:  
> > > On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 02:27:16AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:  
> > > > On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 1:49 AM David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com> wrote:  
> > > > > That description is largely fine.
> > > > >
> > > > > Inappropriate 'inline' ought to be removed.
> > > > > Then 'inline' means - 'really do inline this'.  
> > > >
> > > > You cannot change "static inline" to "static"
> > > > in header files.  
> > >
> > > Why not?  Those two have identical semantics!  
> > 
> > e.g.)
> > 
> > 
> > [1] Open  include/linux/device.h with your favorite editor,
> >      then edit
> > 
> > static inline void *devm_kcalloc(struct device *dev,
> > 
> >     to
> > 
> > static void *devm_kcalloc(struct device *dev,
> > 
> > 
> > [2] Build the kernel  
> 
> You get some "defined but not used" warnings that are shushed for
> inlines.  Do you see something else?
> 
> The semantics are the same.  Warnings are just warnings.  It builds
> fine.

Kernel code should build with zero warnings, the compiler is telling you
something.