linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] BUG(): CONFIG_BUG=n version of BUG() should be unreachable()

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

Date:	Tue, 5 Jan 2010 12:35:44 +0100
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	David Daney <ddaney@...iumnetworks.com>
Cc:	Alexander Beregalov <a.beregalov@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	sam@...nborg.org, dhowells@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] BUG(): CONFIG_BUG=n version of BUG() should be unreachable()

On Monday 04 January 2010, David Daney wrote:
> Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > The alternative "do { } while (1)" is not ideal, because an
> > endless loop still requires more code (typically one instruction)
> > than doing nothing at all.
> > 
> 
> Well "do { } while (1)" is exactly the expansion of unreachable() for 
> GCC < 4.5.  Since GCC-4.5 has not been released yet, most people will 
> get these extra looping instructions if you change BUG in this way.

Yes, that is why I wrote the final paragraph, saying
 
> > If there are only than a handful of places that actually cause a warning,
> > using "do { } while (0)" (or __builtin_unreachable where available) and
> > fixing up the code using it might be better.

	Arnd
--
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/