From: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@arm.com>,
Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com>,
"H . J . Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>,
Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>,
linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] elf: Remove has_interp property from arch_adjust_elf_prot()
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2021 16:17:24 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210609151724.GM4187@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210604112450.13344-4-broonie@kernel.org>
On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 12:24:50PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> Since we have added an is_interp flag to arch_parse_elf_property() we can
> drop the has_interp flag from arch_elf_adjust_prot(), the only user was
> the arm64 code which no longer needs it and any future users will be able
> to use arch_parse_elf_properties() to determine if an interpreter is in
> use.
So far so good, but can we also drop the has_interp argument from
arch_parse_elf_properties()?
Cross-check with Yu-Cheng Yu's series, but I don't see this being used
any more (except for passthrough in binfmt_elf.c).
Since we are treating the interpreter and main executable orthogonally
to each other now, I don't think we should need a has_interp argument to
pass knowledge between the interpreter and executable handling phases
here.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kernel/process.c | 2 +-
> fs/binfmt_elf.c | 2 +-
> include/linux/elf.h | 4 ++--
> 3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c
> index f7fff4a4c99f..e51c4aa7e048 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c
> @@ -742,7 +742,7 @@ asmlinkage void __sched arm64_preempt_schedule_irq(void)
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_BINFMT_ELF
> int arch_elf_adjust_prot(int prot, const struct arch_elf_state *state,
> - bool has_interp, bool is_interp)
> + bool is_interp)
> {
> if (prot & PROT_EXEC) {
> if (state->flags & ARM64_ELF_INTERP_BTI && is_interp)
> diff --git a/fs/binfmt_elf.c b/fs/binfmt_elf.c
> index 253ca9969345..1aba4e50e651 100644
> --- a/fs/binfmt_elf.c
> +++ b/fs/binfmt_elf.c
> @@ -580,7 +580,7 @@ static inline int make_prot(u32 p_flags, struct arch_elf_state *arch_state,
> if (p_flags & PF_X)
> prot |= PROT_EXEC;
>
> - return arch_elf_adjust_prot(prot, arch_state, has_interp, is_interp);
> + return arch_elf_adjust_prot(prot, arch_state, is_interp);
> }
>
> /* This is much more generalized than the library routine read function,
> diff --git a/include/linux/elf.h b/include/linux/elf.h
> index 1c45ecf29147..d8392531899d 100644
> --- a/include/linux/elf.h
> +++ b/include/linux/elf.h
> @@ -101,11 +101,11 @@ extern int arch_parse_elf_property(u32 type, const void *data, size_t datasz,
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_HAVE_ELF_PROT
> int arch_elf_adjust_prot(int prot, const struct arch_elf_state *state,
> - bool has_interp, bool is_interp);
> + bool is_interp);
> #else
> static inline int arch_elf_adjust_prot(int prot,
> const struct arch_elf_state *state,
> - bool has_interp, bool is_interp)
> + bool is_interp)
[...]
Otherwise, looks reasonable.
Cheers
---Dave
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-09 15:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-06-04 11:24 [PATCH v2 0/3] arm64: Enable BTI for the executable as well as the interpreter Mark Brown
2021-06-04 11:24 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] elf: Allow architectures to parse properties on the main executable Mark Brown
2021-06-09 15:16 ` Dave Martin
2021-06-10 13:41 ` Mark Brown
2021-06-04 11:24 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] arm64: Enable BTI for main executable as well as the interpreter Mark Brown
2021-06-09 15:17 ` Dave Martin
2021-06-10 13:19 ` Mark Brown
2021-06-10 15:34 ` Dave Martin
2021-06-04 11:24 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] elf: Remove has_interp property from arch_adjust_elf_prot() Mark Brown
2021-06-09 15:17 ` Dave Martin [this message]
2021-06-09 16:55 ` Yu, Yu-cheng
2021-06-10 9:58 ` Dave Martin
2021-06-10 18:17 ` Yu, Yu-cheng
2021-06-10 13:34 ` Mark Brown
2021-06-10 15:40 ` Dave Martin
2021-06-10 16:28 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] arm64: Enable BTI for the executable as well as the interpreter Jeremy Linton
2021-06-14 16:00 ` Mark Brown
2021-06-15 15:22 ` Dave Martin
2021-06-15 15:33 ` Mark Brown
2021-06-15 15:41 ` Dave Martin
2021-06-16 5:12 ` Jeremy Linton
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=20210609151724.GM4187@arm.com \
--to=dave.martin@arm.com \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=hjl.tools@gmail.com \
--cc=jeremy.linton@arm.com \
--cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=szabolcs.nagy@arm.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=yu-cheng.yu@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: 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 read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).