[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jJ8Gbuj6=ebzu7Wwx2MRD-7qKg-cmhPz_gN6nWCpg-rFg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 15:38:34 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...el.com>, Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>,
Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...el.com>, Eric Northup <digitaleric@...gle.com>,
Dan Rosenberg <drosenberg@...curity.com>, Julien Tinnes <jln@...gle.com>,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] x86: relocs: build separate 32/64-bit tools
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 3:21 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> On 04/12/2013 01:13 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>> Since the ELF structures and access macros change size based on 32 vs
>> 64 bits, build a separate 32-bit relocs tool (for handling realmode
>> and 32-bit relocations), and a 64-bit relocs tool (for handling 64-bit
>> kernel relocations).
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
>> --
>> This is ugly with the "cp". Is there some other cleaner way to trigger
>> two builds with different defines from the same source file?
>
> There definitely is.
>
> Have simple wrapper files which do:
>
> /* relocs_32.c */
> #define ELF_BITS 32
> #include "relocs.c"
>
> /* relocs_64.c */
> #define ELF_BITS 64
> #include "relocs.c"
That's what I did in my first pass, but it seemed even worse to me. I
will go back to this.
Thanks!
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
