linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fix compilation of 64-bit kernel with 32-bit compiler

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:   Thu, 8 Mar 2018 04:09:30 -0500 (EST)
From:   Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc:     David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix compilation of 64-bit kernel with 32-bit compiler



On Thu, 8 Mar 2018, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 01:11:26AM -0500, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > The patch b5bc2231b8ad4387c9641f235ca0ad8cd300b6df ("objtool: Add 
> > retpoline validation") broke compiling 64-bit kernel with 32-bit compiler.
> > 
> > This patch fixes the following error and a large number of "can't find
> > rela for retpoline_safe" errors that occur when using x32 or i386 gcc.
> > 
> > You shouldn't use the type 'unsigned long' in objtool at all - because its
> > size depends on the compiler and not on the kernel you are compiling.
> 
> Your patch is wrong because the data field is actually a long. A correct
> patch is already in merged in tip.

I'm wondering, why is objtool using 'unsigned long' at all? Why not 
uint32_t and uint64_t? The size of 'unsigned long' is dependent on the 
compiler, so it will lead to different behavior.

Mikulas