linux-ext4 - Re: kerneloops.org: 2.6.26-rc possible regression in ext3

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]

Message-ID: <20080619154335.GC2721@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi>
Date:	Thu, 19 Jun 2008 18:43:35 +0300
From:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
To:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: kerneloops.org: 2.6.26-rc possible regression in ext3

On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 08:27:48AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 08:18:39AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>>> Adrian Bunk wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 06:40:05AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>>>>> Adrian Bunk wrote:
>>>>>> Expect a lot more of this to pop up in the future.
>>>>>> Should we #error for gcc 4.3.1?
>>>>> it/s better to find if the gcc guys made a testcase for this bug (they normally do) and
>>>>> test based on that.
>>>> The gcc Bugzilla contains a testcase.
>>>>
>>>> But how do you plan to integrate it into a kernel build?
>>> we already have several of these.
>>> Just look at scripts/gcc-x86_64-has-stack-protector.sh for an example of such a beast.
>>
>> Checking whether gcc supports some flags is easy.
>
> have you actually looked at this script?
> You didn't, since the script doesn't check if gcc supports some flag.
> It checks very specifically for a code generation pattern...
>
> Please go look at the script first before responding.

I did look, but I missed the last pipe...

Do we know for sure this bug can only trigger on 32bit x86?

Or is there anything else I miss in gcc-x86_64-has-stack-protector.sh 
that allows to use this approach to check for wrong code generation 
caused by platform independent gcc bugs?

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html