linux-kernel - Re: [patch 1/2] m68k: runtime patching infrastructure

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 3 Jun 2007 17:56:49 +0200
From:	Wouter Verhelst <wouter@...ian.org>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-m68k@...r.kernel.org,
	Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] m68k: runtime patching infrastructure

On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 05:38:18PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
[...]
> > +struct mod_arch_specific {
> > +	struct m68k_fixup_info *fixup_start, *fixup_end;
> > +};
> 
> Here we use struct m68k_fixup_info.
[...]
> > +struct m68k_fixup_info {
> > +	enum m68k_fixup_type type;
> > +	void *addr;
> > +};
> 
> and later we define it.
> 
> How come it doesn't spit warnings?

Because otherwise you couldn't create linked lists:

struct foo {
  void* data;
  struct foo* next;
};

At that point it hasn't been defined yet but it is being used. This is
legal, so the compiler can't create a warning for that.

Which is not to say that it's a nice coding style, but that's a
different matter.

-- 
Shaw's Principle:
	Build a system that even a fool can use, and only a fool will
	want to use it.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/