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 ADA0EC433EF for ; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 18:52:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B5CF60F36 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 18:52:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232167AbhJNSyU (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Oct 2021 14:54:20 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:33526 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231549AbhJNSyT (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Oct 2021 14:54:19 -0400 Received: from gandalf.local.home (cpe-66-24-58-225.stny.res.rr.com [66.24.58.225]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4AF6761027; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 18:52:13 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2021 14:52:11 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Kees Cook Cc: Borislav Petkov , Sami Tolvanen , x86@kernel.org, Josh Poimboeuf , Peter Zijlstra , Nathan Chancellor , Nick Desaulniers , Sedat Dilek , linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 09/15] x86: Use an opaque type for functions not callable from C Message-ID: <20211014145211.573579e6@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <202110141141.870A67E@keescook> References: <20211013181658.1020262-1-samitolvanen@google.com> <20211013181658.1020262-10-samitolvanen@google.com> <202110140904.41B5183E@keescook> <202110141141.870A67E@keescook> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.8 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 14 Oct 2021 11:47:01 -0700 Kees Cook wrote: > On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 07:31:26PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 09:07:57AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > > Looking at the changelog, DECLARE_ASM_FUNC_SYMBOL, makes a lot more > > sense to me even if it doesn't specify the aspect that it is not called > > by C but who cares - it is generic enough. > > Around we go. :) Josh[1] and Steven[2] explicitly disagreed with > that name, leading to the current name[3]. Do you want it to be > DECLARE_ASM_FUNC_SYMBOL() over those objections? Just note, that I was fine with the original name, but was against the version Josh suggested ;-) > > I'd really like to finish this shed -- I need to take the bikes in from > the rain. :P Back to black it is! -- Steve