From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
To: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
kasan-dev <kasan-dev@googlegroups.com>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1] powerpc: Enable KFENCE for PPC32
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2021 22:49:36 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87tupprfan.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANpmjNM9o1s4O4v2T9HUohPdCDJzWcaC5KDrt_7BSVdTUQWagw@mail.gmail.com>
Marco Elver <elver@google.com> writes:
...
>
> The choice is between:
>
> 1. ARCH_FUNC_PREFIX (as a matter of fact, the ARCH_FUNC_PREFIX patch
> is already in -mm). Perhaps we could optimize it further, by checking
> ARCH_FUNC_PREFIX in buf, and advancing buf like you propose, but I'm
> not sure it's worth worrying about.
>
> 2. The dynamic solution that I proposed that does not use a hard-coded
> '.' (or some variation thereof).
>
> Please tell me which solution you prefer, 1 or 2 -- I'd like to stop
> bikeshedding here. If there's a compelling argument for hard-coding
> the '.' in non-arch code, please clarify, but otherwise I'd like to
> keep arch-specific things out of generic code.
It's your choice, I was just trying to minimise the size of the wart you
have to carry in kfence code to deal with it.
The ARCH_FUNC_PREFIX solution is fine by me.
cheers
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-05 11:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-03-02 8:37 [RFC PATCH v1] powerpc: Enable KFENCE for PPC32 Christophe Leroy
2021-03-02 8:58 ` Marco Elver
2021-03-02 9:05 ` Christophe Leroy
2021-03-02 9:21 ` Alexander Potapenko
2021-03-02 9:27 ` Christophe Leroy
2021-03-02 9:53 ` Marco Elver
2021-03-02 11:21 ` Christophe Leroy
2021-03-02 11:39 ` Marco Elver
2021-03-03 10:38 ` Christophe Leroy
2021-03-03 10:56 ` Marco Elver
2021-03-04 11:23 ` Christophe Leroy
2021-03-04 11:31 ` Marco Elver
2021-03-04 11:48 ` Christophe Leroy
2021-03-04 12:00 ` Christophe Leroy
2021-03-04 12:02 ` Marco Elver
2021-03-04 12:48 ` Marco Elver
2021-03-04 14:08 ` Christophe Leroy
2021-03-04 14:19 ` Marco Elver
2021-03-05 5:01 ` Michael Ellerman
2021-03-05 7:50 ` Marco Elver
2021-03-05 8:23 ` Christophe Leroy
2021-03-05 9:14 ` Marco Elver
2021-03-05 11:49 ` Michael Ellerman [this message]
2021-03-05 13:46 ` Marco Elver
2021-03-02 11:40 ` Michael Ellerman
2021-03-02 18:48 ` Segher Boessenkool
2021-03-03 10:28 ` Christophe Leroy
2021-03-03 10:31 ` Christophe Leroy
2021-03-03 10:39 ` Marco Elver
2021-03-03 10:56 ` Christophe Leroy
[not found] ` <CANpmjNMKEObjf=WyfDQB5vPmR5RuyUMBJyfr6P2ykCd67wyMbA__49537.1361424745$1614767987$gmane$org@mail.gmail.com>
2021-03-03 10:46 ` Andreas Schwab
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=87tupprfan.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au \
--to=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu \
--cc=dvyukov@google.com \
--cc=elver@google.com \
--cc=glider@google.com \
--cc=kasan-dev@googlegroups.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
/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: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).