linux-kernel - Re: fs/exec.c: use BUILD_BUG_ON for VM_STACK_FLAGS & VM_STACK_INCOMPLETE

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:	Wed, 15 Jun 2011 21:45:00 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	akpm <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: fs/exec.c: use BUILD_BUG_ON for VM_STACK_FLAGS & VM_STACK_INCOMPLETE_SETUP

On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com> wrote:
>
> fwiw, I just reported that this causes a build error in UML on x86_64
> in mmotm-2011-06-15:

Gaah. That sounds really familiar. Have we done this same mistake once
before already, or is it just deja-vu for some other reason.

On x86-64 UML, we have

  #define VM_STACK_DEFAULT_FLAGS vm_stack_flags

so VM_STACK_FLAGS ends up not being a constant, even though it really
looks like one.

UML is _really_ confused in this area, btw. It seems to re-define that
thing if TIF_IA32 is defined. That's some crazy stuff. Doesn't the
compiler warn about it?

I guess I should just revert that commit, though. Even if it does seem
to be the case that UML is just being crazy. Andrew?

                  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/