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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 21:05:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> To: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org> cc: Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>, Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...ru>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au Subject: Re: WARN_ON() which sometimes sucks On Wed, 1 Aug 2007, Paul Mackerras wrote: > > It will mean more code on architectures which have a > conditional-trap-on-nonzero instruction, such as powerpc, since the > compiler will generate instructions to evaluate !!x. But I don't see > any reason why ret_warn_on couldn't be a long. Umm. The WARN_ON() might actually get a "long long" value for all we know. Ie it's perfectly possible that the WARN_ON might look like /* Must not have high bits on */ WARN_ON(offset & 0xffffffff00000000); which on a 32-bit pcc would apparently do the wrong thing entirely as it stands now. No? I think I'll commit the !!(x) version, and you guys can try to figure out what the right thing is long-term. For all I know, the proper solution is to just revert the whole mess, and *not* make WARN_ON() return a value at all, since that seems to be the fundamental mistake here. Linus - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists