Re: [PATCH v2 01/29] powerpc: Rename "notes" PT_NOTE to "note"
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 06:54:13PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 11:25:52AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > Names *matter*, internal names doubly so. So why replace a good name with > > a worse name? Because it is slightly less work for you? > > So if we agree on the name "notes" and we decide to rename the other > arches, this should all be done in a separate patchset anyway, and ontop > of this one. And I believe Kees wouldn't mind doing it ontop since he's > gotten his hands dirty already. :-P Yeah, I'm fine with that. I would prefer to do it as a separate step, just to minimize the logical steps each patch takes. Shall I spin a v3 with the Acks added and a final rename for this? -- Kees Cook
Re: [PATCH v2 01/29] powerpc: Rename "notes" PT_NOTE to "note"
On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 11:25:52AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > Names *matter*, internal names doubly so. So why replace a good name with > a worse name? Because it is slightly less work for you? So if we agree on the name "notes" and we decide to rename the other arches, this should all be done in a separate patchset anyway, and ontop of this one. And I believe Kees wouldn't mind doing it ontop since he's gotten his hands dirty already. :-P Thx. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Re: [PATCH v2 01/29] powerpc: Rename "notes" PT_NOTE to "note"
On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 03:25:19AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 05:05:41PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > > The Program Header identifiers are internal to the linker scripts. In > > preparation for moving the NOTES segment declaration into RO_DATA, > > standardize the identifier for the PT_NOTE entry to "note" as used by > > all other architectures that emit PT_NOTE. > > All other archs are wrong, and "notes" is a much better name. This > segment does not contain a single "note", but multiple "notes". True, but the naming appears to be based off the Program Header name of "PT_NOTE". Regardless, it is an entirely internal-to-the-linker-script identifier, so I am just consolidating on a common name with the least number of collateral changes. -- Kees Cook
Re: [PATCH v2 01/29] powerpc: Rename "notes" PT_NOTE to "note"
Kees Cook writes:
> The Program Header identifiers are internal to the linker scripts. In
> preparation for moving the NOTES segment declaration into RO_DATA,
> standardize the identifier for the PT_NOTE entry to "note" as used by
> all other architectures that emit PT_NOTE.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook
> ---
> arch/powerpc/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Acked-by: Michael Ellerman
cheers
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S
> b/arch/powerpc/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S
> index 060a1acd7c6d..81e672654789 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S
> @@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ ENTRY(_stext)
>
> PHDRS {
> kernel PT_LOAD FLAGS(7); /* RWX */
> - notes PT_NOTE FLAGS(0);
> + note PT_NOTE FLAGS(0);
> dummy PT_NOTE FLAGS(0);
>
> /* binutils < 2.18 has a bug that makes it misbehave when taking an
> @@ -177,7 +177,7 @@ SECTIONS
> #endif
> EXCEPTION_TABLE(0)
>
> - NOTES :kernel :notes
> + NOTES :kernel :note
>
> /* The dummy segment contents for the bug workaround mentioned above
> near PHDRS. */
> --
> 2.17.1
[PATCH v2 01/29] powerpc: Rename "notes" PT_NOTE to "note"
The Program Header identifiers are internal to the linker scripts. In
preparation for moving the NOTES segment declaration into RO_DATA,
standardize the identifier for the PT_NOTE entry to "note" as used by
all other architectures that emit PT_NOTE.
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook
---
arch/powerpc/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S
b/arch/powerpc/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S
index 060a1acd7c6d..81e672654789 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ ENTRY(_stext)
PHDRS {
kernel PT_LOAD FLAGS(7); /* RWX */
- notes PT_NOTE FLAGS(0);
+ note PT_NOTE FLAGS(0);
dummy PT_NOTE FLAGS(0);
/* binutils < 2.18 has a bug that makes it misbehave when taking an
@@ -177,7 +177,7 @@ SECTIONS
#endif
EXCEPTION_TABLE(0)
- NOTES :kernel :notes
+ NOTES :kernel :note
/* The dummy segment contents for the bug workaround mentioned above
near PHDRS. */
--
2.17.1
