From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57F7BC433FE for ; Wed, 13 Oct 2021 07:27:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F6E660D07 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 2021 07:27:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S238402AbhJMH3Y (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Oct 2021 03:29:24 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:36500 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229664AbhJMH3X (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Oct 2021 03:29:23 -0400 Received: from mail-pl1-x629.google.com (mail-pl1-x629.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::629]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E2219C061570 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 2021 00:27:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pl1-x629.google.com with SMTP id v20so1200323plo.7 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 2021 00:27:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; bh=x1Ebcu4q4sojvBysK6NeK0lyMBpBy7CX3GptiOMMz40=; b=GbpddXjN019bQRXDXQj4kZZgfvpNA9cDk7qQs6S3vPQNLW6lsorFYr9g4BlfG8r+MH umScAii8wL7g7/Mjovb3dW34qcZ1nUli4UtJdgQXZQOIkLCSHGM6H+Tkjgjdjt6bH5od a+gBBBgtnRHNxhWlxeaphPwHSjnFpwXmEJLl8= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to; bh=x1Ebcu4q4sojvBysK6NeK0lyMBpBy7CX3GptiOMMz40=; b=llyqMvOhGC5WkOG+oX0BaU2WJ3VSwFcQ1TBr2eUX6t8054mAx/jd5vff5bnM6eDKFP cFF8ceFtlpnUstQvzfiw9D7mXHZNK0KCTEIRIWiCb+sHA/7LVsELKVHfMMYB/EDEBA0Y J2MU+nc3X38+EU2DGamOCRFw9nbKiz8j4YxwUoP9LQQaiL7+ZhwkbT7+VKargCedvdFE +Oudo2Xa3KVuMHl0U9Z40V5wLQjxpu1MugyUlnfy3cQ4xEqWM828M2CceL/OKsMN+Jke JfE2Tr3POLx4mKTogwnQf+XNkVeMm5N8d7TUNuk3J8wtPBUGJWkXahzUj3tJ1x7YEVpE B0KQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530vBhnc0jZkcxFtEgvHuKjYR4Vx6NEG572TD7e6gajmCJvPVDTA MEf+9WnYJZOWlfzBPshROkzyaw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy6bp8C1wfggIt0cRU76okfX2vFeGYaLqCkxWcLL3pwaky7370uXkBgC65bEOt7+KLhBK5Nag== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:bb82:: with SMTP id v2mr11607404pjr.57.1634110040417; Wed, 13 Oct 2021 00:27:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from www.outflux.net (smtp.outflux.net. [198.145.64.163]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id fh3sm4933022pjb.8.2021.10.13.00.27.19 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 13 Oct 2021 00:27:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2021 00:27:19 -0700 From: Kees Cook To: Christophe Leroy Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Paul Mackerras , Michael Ellerman , Andrew Morton , "James E.J. Bottomley" , Helge Deller , Arnd Bergmann , Greg Kroah-Hartman , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 05/10] asm-generic: Define 'funct_descr_t' to commonly describe function descriptors Message-ID: <202110130026.0AB963F82@keescook> References: <02224551451ab9c37055499fc621c41246c81125.1633964380.git.christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu> <202110130001.11A50456@keescook> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 09:23:56AM +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote: > > > Le 13/10/2021 à 09:01, Kees Cook a écrit : > > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 05:25:32PM +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote: > > > We have three architectures using function descriptors, each with its > > > own name. > > > > > > Add a common typedef that can be used in generic code. > > > > > > Also add a stub typedef for architecture without function descriptors, > > > > nit: funct_descr_t reads weird to me. why not func_desc_t ? Either way: > > func_desc_t already exists in powerpc. I have a patch to remove it as it is > redundant with struct ppc64_opd_entry, but I didnt' want to include it in > this series. > > But after all I can add it in this series, I'll add it in v2. Ah-ha! That works for me. :) Thanks! -Kees -- Kees Cook