linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -rc] [BUGFIX] x86: fix kernel_trap

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:	Tue, 12 May 2009 07:36:07 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Robin Holt <holt@....com>
cc:	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	systemtap@...rces.redhat.com,
	Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Jan Blunck <jblunck@...e.de>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -rc] [BUGFIX] x86: fix kernel_trap_sp()



On Tue, 12 May 2009, Robin Holt wrote:
> >   */
> > -static inline unsigned long kernel_trap_sp(struct pt_regs *regs)
> > +static inline unsigned long kernel_stack_pointer(struct pt_regs *regs)
> 
> Why not have it return an unsigned long *?

I considered it, but since part of the point of the patch was to make it 
look like the mirror of "user_stack_pointer()", returning "unsigned long" 
looked more appropriate.

But I have no really strong opinions. I wouldn't object to making it 
return "unsigned long *" either.

		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/