From: "Zheng, Lv" <lv.zheng@intel.com> To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "Moore, Robert" <robert.moore@intel.com>, "Wysocki, Rafael J" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>, Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>, "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>, "devel@acpica.org" <devel@acpica.org> Subject: RE: [PATCH] ACPICA: use designated initializers Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 02:12:29 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <1AE640813FDE7649BE1B193DEA596E886CE6BD95@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <CAGXu5jJk2+_r_72B=yqz9=s=S3VY6v8o7jis7e6YMhy2tSJgHw@mail.gmail.com> Hi, > From: keescook@google.com [mailto:keescook@google.com] On Behalf Of Kees Cook > Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPICA: use designated initializers > > On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 10:06 PM, Zheng, Lv <lv.zheng@intel.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > > >> From: Kees Cook [mailto:keescook@chromium.org] > >> Subject: [PATCH] ACPICA: use designated initializers > >> > >> Prepare to mark sensitive kernel structures for randomization by making > >> sure they're using designated initializers. These were identified during > >> allyesconfig builds of x86, arm, and arm64, with most initializer fixes > >> extracted from grsecurity. > > > > This commit is not suitable for ACPICA upstream. > > It's not portable. Please drop. > > What compilers are building this that do not support designated > initializers? Also, couldn't this be made into a macro so it could be > supported in either case? It's MSVC. In ACPICA upstream, it supports Intel compiler, GCC and MSVC. > > #ifdef __GNUC__ > # define ACPI_SLEEP_FUNCTIONS(legacy, extended) { \ > .legacy_function = legacy, \ > .extended_function = extended, \ > } > #else > # define ACPI_SLEEP_FUNCTIONS(legacy, extended) { legacy, extended } > #endif > > ... > > static struct acpi_sleep_functions acpi_sleep_dispatch[] = { > ACPI_SLEEP_FUNCTIONS( > ACPI_HW_OPTIONAL_FUNCTION(acpi_hw_legacy_sleep), > acpi_hw_extended_sleep), > ... There are many such cases in ACPICA, and I couldn't see the benefit to introduce such mechanism to such a software whose purposes contain portability. Unless you can invent a mechanism that can be utilized by all such cases. Then you should put it into acgcc.h and implement a replaceable in acmsvc.h. After that, you surely need to do a cleanup in the entire ACPICA code base using this new mechanism. Thanks Lv > > > -Kees > > > > > Thanks > > Lv > > > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> > >> --- > >> drivers/acpi/acpica/hwxfsleep.c | 11 ++++++----- > >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpica/hwxfsleep.c b/drivers/acpi/acpica/hwxfsleep.c > >> index f76e0eab32b8..25cd5c66e102 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/acpi/acpica/hwxfsleep.c > >> +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpica/hwxfsleep.c > >> @@ -70,11 +70,12 @@ static acpi_status acpi_hw_sleep_dispatch(u8 sleep_state, u32 function_id); > >> /* Legacy functions are optional, based upon ACPI_REDUCED_HARDWARE */ > >> > >> static struct acpi_sleep_functions acpi_sleep_dispatch[] = { > >> - {ACPI_HW_OPTIONAL_FUNCTION(acpi_hw_legacy_sleep), > >> - acpi_hw_extended_sleep}, > >> - {ACPI_HW_OPTIONAL_FUNCTION(acpi_hw_legacy_wake_prep), > >> - acpi_hw_extended_wake_prep}, > >> - {ACPI_HW_OPTIONAL_FUNCTION(acpi_hw_legacy_wake), acpi_hw_extended_wake} > >> + { .legacy_function = ACPI_HW_OPTIONAL_FUNCTION(acpi_hw_legacy_sleep), > >> + .extended_function = acpi_hw_extended_sleep }, > >> + { .legacy_function = ACPI_HW_OPTIONAL_FUNCTION(acpi_hw_legacy_wake_prep), > >> + .extended_function = acpi_hw_extended_wake_prep }, > >> + { .legacy_function = ACPI_HW_OPTIONAL_FUNCTION(acpi_hw_legacy_wake), > >> + .extended_function = acpi_hw_extended_wake } > >> }; > >> > >> /* > >> -- > >> 2.7.4 > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Kees Cook > >> Nexus Security > > > > -- > Kees Cook > Pixel Security
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Zheng, Lv <lv.zheng at intel.com> To: devel@acpica.org Subject: Re: [Devel] [PATCH] ACPICA: use designated initializers Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 02:12:29 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <1AE640813FDE7649BE1B193DEA596E886CE6BD95@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: CAGXu5jJk2+_r_72B=yqz9=s=S3VY6v8o7jis7e6YMhy2tSJgHw@mail.gmail.com [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3481 bytes --] Hi, > From: keescook(a)google.com [mailto:keescook(a)google.com] On Behalf Of Kees Cook > Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPICA: use designated initializers > > On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 10:06 PM, Zheng, Lv <lv.zheng(a)intel.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > > >> From: Kees Cook [mailto:keescook(a)chromium.org] > >> Subject: [PATCH] ACPICA: use designated initializers > >> > >> Prepare to mark sensitive kernel structures for randomization by making > >> sure they're using designated initializers. These were identified during > >> allyesconfig builds of x86, arm, and arm64, with most initializer fixes > >> extracted from grsecurity. > > > > This commit is not suitable for ACPICA upstream. > > It's not portable. Please drop. > > What compilers are building this that do not support designated > initializers? Also, couldn't this be made into a macro so it could be > supported in either case? It's MSVC. In ACPICA upstream, it supports Intel compiler, GCC and MSVC. > > #ifdef __GNUC__ > # define ACPI_SLEEP_FUNCTIONS(legacy, extended) { \ > .legacy_function = legacy, \ > .extended_function = extended, \ > } > #else > # define ACPI_SLEEP_FUNCTIONS(legacy, extended) { legacy, extended } > #endif > > ... > > static struct acpi_sleep_functions acpi_sleep_dispatch[] = { > ACPI_SLEEP_FUNCTIONS( > ACPI_HW_OPTIONAL_FUNCTION(acpi_hw_legacy_sleep), > acpi_hw_extended_sleep), > ... There are many such cases in ACPICA, and I couldn't see the benefit to introduce such mechanism to such a software whose purposes contain portability. Unless you can invent a mechanism that can be utilized by all such cases. Then you should put it into acgcc.h and implement a replaceable in acmsvc.h. After that, you surely need to do a cleanup in the entire ACPICA code base using this new mechanism. Thanks Lv > > > -Kees > > > > > Thanks > > Lv > > > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook(a)chromium.org> > >> --- > >> drivers/acpi/acpica/hwxfsleep.c | 11 ++++++----- > >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpica/hwxfsleep.c b/drivers/acpi/acpica/hwxfsleep.c > >> index f76e0eab32b8..25cd5c66e102 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/acpi/acpica/hwxfsleep.c > >> +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpica/hwxfsleep.c > >> @@ -70,11 +70,12 @@ static acpi_status acpi_hw_sleep_dispatch(u8 sleep_state, u32 function_id); > >> /* Legacy functions are optional, based upon ACPI_REDUCED_HARDWARE */ > >> > >> static struct acpi_sleep_functions acpi_sleep_dispatch[] = { > >> - {ACPI_HW_OPTIONAL_FUNCTION(acpi_hw_legacy_sleep), > >> - acpi_hw_extended_sleep}, > >> - {ACPI_HW_OPTIONAL_FUNCTION(acpi_hw_legacy_wake_prep), > >> - acpi_hw_extended_wake_prep}, > >> - {ACPI_HW_OPTIONAL_FUNCTION(acpi_hw_legacy_wake), acpi_hw_extended_wake} > >> + { .legacy_function = ACPI_HW_OPTIONAL_FUNCTION(acpi_hw_legacy_sleep), > >> + .extended_function = acpi_hw_extended_sleep }, > >> + { .legacy_function = ACPI_HW_OPTIONAL_FUNCTION(acpi_hw_legacy_wake_prep), > >> + .extended_function = acpi_hw_extended_wake_prep }, > >> + { .legacy_function = ACPI_HW_OPTIONAL_FUNCTION(acpi_hw_legacy_wake), > >> + .extended_function = acpi_hw_extended_wake } > >> }; > >> > >> /* > >> -- > >> 2.7.4 > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Kees Cook > >> Nexus Security > > > > -- > Kees Cook > Pixel Security
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-03-30 2:12 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2016-12-17 1:04 [PATCH] ACPICA: use designated initializers Kees Cook 2016-12-17 2:17 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2016-12-19 6:06 ` Zheng, Lv 2016-12-19 6:06 ` [Devel] " Zheng, Lv 2017-03-29 21:16 ` Kees Cook 2017-03-30 2:12 ` Zheng, Lv [this message] 2017-03-30 2:12 ` [Devel] " Zheng, Lv 2017-03-30 14:26 ` Moore, Robert 2017-03-30 14:26 ` [Devel] " Moore, Robert 2017-04-01 0:26 ` Kees Cook 2017-04-01 0:45 ` Moore, Robert 2017-04-01 0:45 ` [Devel] " Moore, Robert 2017-04-03 17:29 ` Kees Cook 2017-04-04 15:02 ` Moore, Robert 2017-04-04 15:02 ` [Devel] " Moore, Robert 2017-04-04 15:55 ` Kees Cook 2017-05-08 20:05 ` Kees Cook
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=1AE640813FDE7649BE1B193DEA596E886CE6BD95@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com \ --to=lv.zheng@intel.com \ --cc=devel@acpica.org \ --cc=keescook@chromium.org \ --cc=lenb@kernel.org \ --cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \ --cc=robert.moore@intel.com \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.