| Message ID | 20230210185945.915806-1-conor@kernel.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | eb9be8310c58c166f9fae3b71c0ad9d6741b4897 |
| Delegated to: | Palmer Dabbelt |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v1] RISC-V: add a spin_shadow_stack declaration | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| conchuod/cover_letter | success | Single patches do not need cover letters |
| conchuod/tree_selection | success | Guessed tree name to be for-next |
| conchuod/fixes_present | success | Fixes tag not required for -next series |
| conchuod/maintainers_pattern | success | MAINTAINERS pattern errors before the patch: 13 and now 13 |
| conchuod/verify_signedoff | success | Signed-off-by tag matches author and committer |
| conchuod/kdoc | success | Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0 |
| conchuod/build_rv64_clang_allmodconfig | success | Errors and warnings before: 2468 this patch: 2468 |
| conchuod/module_param | success | Was 0 now: 0 |
| conchuod/build_rv64_gcc_allmodconfig | success | Errors and warnings before: 17339 this patch: 17338 |
| conchuod/alphanumeric_selects | success | Out of order selects before the patch: 59 and now 59 |
| conchuod/build_rv32_defconfig | success | Build OK |
| conchuod/dtb_warn_rv64 | success | Errors and warnings before: 2 this patch: 2 |
| conchuod/header_inline | success | No static functions without inline keyword in header files |
| conchuod/checkpatch | success | total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 checks, 7 lines checked |
| conchuod/source_inline | success | Was 0 now: 0 |
| conchuod/build_rv64_nommu_k210_defconfig | success | Build OK |
| conchuod/verify_fixes | success | No Fixes tag |
| conchuod/build_rv64_nommu_virt_defconfig | success | Build OK |
On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 2:59 AM Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org> wrote: > > From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> > > The patchwork automation reported a sparse complaint that > spin_shadow_stack was not declared and should be static: > ../arch/riscv/kernel/traps.c:335:15: warning: symbol 'spin_shadow_stack' was not declared. Should it be static? > > However, this is used in entry.S and therefore shouldn't be static. > The same applies to the shadow_stack that this pseudo spinlock is > trying to protect, so do like its charge and add a declaration to > thread_info.h > > Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> > --- > Applies on top of Guo Ren's generic entry series. It's needn't on top of my generic entry series. It's the separate patch for: Fixes: 7e1864332fbc ("riscv: fix race when vmap stack overflow") Reviewed-by: Guo Ren <guoren@kernel.org> > --- > arch/riscv/include/asm/thread_info.h | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/thread_info.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/thread_info.h > index 7de4fb96f0b5..e0d202134b44 100644 > --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/thread_info.h > +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/thread_info.h > @@ -43,6 +43,7 @@ > #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__ > > extern long shadow_stack[SHADOW_OVERFLOW_STACK_SIZE / sizeof(long)]; > +extern unsigned long spin_shadow_stack; > > #include <asm/processor.h> > #include <asm/csr.h> > -- > 2.39.1 >
On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 01:04:43PM +0800, Guo Ren wrote: > On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 2:59 AM Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> > > > > The patchwork automation reported a sparse complaint that > > spin_shadow_stack was not declared and should be static: > > ../arch/riscv/kernel/traps.c:335:15: warning: symbol 'spin_shadow_stack' was not declared. Should it be static? > > > > However, this is used in entry.S and therefore shouldn't be static. > > The same applies to the shadow_stack that this pseudo spinlock is > > trying to protect, so do like its charge and add a declaration to > > thread_info.h > > > > Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> > > --- > > Applies on top of Guo Ren's generic entry series. > It's needn't on top of my generic entry series. It's the separate patch for: I didn't mean I was "blaming" your series for it's introduction, I meant that I created the patch using your series as a base to avoid any potential for conflicts. > Fixes: 7e1864332fbc ("riscv: fix race when vmap stack overflow") Wasn't sure if this warranted one, but you're probably right to add it. > Reviewed-by: Guo Ren <guoren@kernel.org> Thanks!
Hello: This patch was applied to riscv/linux.git (for-next) by Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>: On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 18:59:45 +0000 you wrote: > From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> > > The patchwork automation reported a sparse complaint that > spin_shadow_stack was not declared and should be static: > ../arch/riscv/kernel/traps.c:335:15: warning: symbol 'spin_shadow_stack' was not declared. Should it be static? > > However, this is used in entry.S and therefore shouldn't be static. > The same applies to the shadow_stack that this pseudo spinlock is > trying to protect, so do like its charge and add a declaration to > thread_info.h > > [...] Here is the summary with links: - [v1] RISC-V: add a spin_shadow_stack declaration https://git.kernel.org/riscv/c/eb9be8310c58 You are awesome, thank you!
diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/thread_info.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/thread_info.h index 7de4fb96f0b5..e0d202134b44 100644 --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/thread_info.h +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/thread_info.h @@ -43,6 +43,7 @@ #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__ extern long shadow_stack[SHADOW_OVERFLOW_STACK_SIZE / sizeof(long)]; +extern unsigned long spin_shadow_stack; #include <asm/processor.h> #include <asm/csr.h>