On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 8:55 AM, Kees Cook <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Moore, Robert <[email protected]> wrote: >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kees >>> Cook >>> Sent: Monday, April 3, 2017 10:29 AM >>> To: Moore, Robert <[email protected]> >>> Cc: Zheng, Lv <[email protected]>; [email protected]; >>> Wysocki, Rafael J <[email protected]>; Len Brown >>> <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPICA: use designated initializers >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Moore, Robert <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > Acpica is built with many compilers, even very old ones. It runs on at >>> least 12 known operating systems, and very probably more. >>> > >>> > I'm sorry, but no, we are not going to start adding compiler-specific >>> ifdefs/code in the base ACPICA code. >>> > >>> > I don't care what you do in the Linux-specific or gcc-specific >>> headers, however. If this breaks a customer build, we (you) will hear >>> about it rather quickly. >>> >>> Since the change is specific to the one place ACPICA uses an all- >>> function-pointer structure, I made the change local: >>> >>> https://github.com/acpica/acpica/pull/248 >>> >>> would you rather this is in the .h files instead? >>> >>> -Kees >>> >>> -- >>> Kees Cook >>> Pixel Security >> >> >> >> >> [Moore, Robert] >> >> I have some questions about this entire issue: >> >> + * Some compilers can handle designated initializers, which is needed >> + * under Linux kernel builds for structures that are entirely function >> * pointers. >> >> I don't understand why this is coming up now, since ACPICA has been >> integrated with Linux for something like the last 15 years. It's the "which >> is needed under Linux kernel builds" wording that concerns me the most. Are >> you saying that the ACPICA build for Linux is broken and does not work? > > I was trying to avoid being overly Linux-specific in the ACPICA commit > message. More accurately, this is "for future Linux builds using the > structure layout randomization plugin." That plugin will randomize the > layout of manually marked structures and automatically for structures > that are entirely function pointers. (And this acpica structure is one > noticed by the plugin.)
Here is the merge request in upstream ACPICA. Can anyone re-review it? https://github.com/acpica/acpica/pull/248/ Thanks! -Kees -- Kees Cook Pixel Security
