On 04/09/2025 04:51, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 01, 2025 at 08:44:56PM +0200, Vegard Nossum wrote:
>> If you change sym_calc_visibility() to always return 'yes' for
>> transitional values then I don't think you need to touch
>> sym_calc_value() at all.
> 
> Hm, it looks like sym_calc_visibility() doesn't strictly just look at
> visibility. And visibility seems to "last"? And I think the "tri" still
> can't just be "yes", don't we need the other stuff handled?
> 
> Do you see a way to do it how you're suggesting? And now I wrote the
> regression tests so we can test any alternatives! ;)

Here's what I had in mind (on top of your kcfi patchset), see the
attachment.

It basically undoes all your additions to sym_calc_value() in favour of
two straightforward additions:

@@ -214,6 +214,11 @@ static void sym_calc_visibility(struct symbol *sym)
         struct property *prop;
         tristate tri;

+       if (sym->flags & SYMBOL_HIDDEN) {
+               sym->visible = yes;
+               return;
+       }
+

and

@@ -536,7 +531,7 @@ void sym_calc_value(struct symbol *sym)
                 }
         }

-       if (sym_is_choice(sym))
+       if (sym_is_choice(sym) || sym->flags & SYMBOL_HIDDEN)
                 sym->flags &= ~SYMBOL_WRITE;
  }

Let me know how that works for you (the new test passes here).


Vegard