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:	Fri, 8 Feb 2013 20:50:57 +0200
From:	Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@...ux.intel.com>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	kbuild test robot <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: sound/pci/asihpi/hpioctl.c:125:6: warning: cast to pointer from
 integer of different size

On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 09:06:52AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 02/08/2013 07:28 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > 
> > Whether that's safe for x86 or not, I don't know, but my suspicions are
> > that it's unsafe on x86 as it's possible to refer to the various bytes/
> > half-words of eax separately.
> > 
> > So, I came to the conclusion that if x86 remains a problem, there's
> > little point supporting it on ARM.
> > 
> 
> It is possible to access bytes separately, but gcc generally doesn't.
> However, whether or not that can be relied upon safely is a tricky question.
> 
> It *is* also worth nothing that the x86 ABI does allow two words to be
> returned in registers from a normal C function, simply by returning a
> structure.  That doesn't solve the problem at hand, though, which is how
> to make a type-neutral macro which can handle doublewords...

I just tried to compare a couple of options:

1)
	unsigned long __val_gu;
	unsigned long long __val_gu8;

2)
	register typeof(x) __val_gu asm("eax");

	I was still using a test app based on my orignal patch which
	used eax and edx for the value.

3)
	typeof(x) __val_gu;

While options 2 and 3 get rid of the warnings, they unfortunately
produce different results as well.

I've attached my test app in case you want to see it.

One other note is that if I include the memtest() call in the test,
option 1 and 2 produce the same results, but w/o the memtest() the
results differ. I didn't look into it any further.

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC

View attachment "get_user.S" of type "text/x-asm" (701 bytes)

View attachment "Makefile" of type "text/plain" (204 bytes)

View attachment "uaccess.c" of type "text/x-c" (3711 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ