linux-ext4 - Re: Aarch64 EXT4FS inode checksum failures - seems to be weak memory ordering issues

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]

Message-ID: <CAHk-=wiHaVWUKQ9wvHe5D=JrV3MDehfRi_FL7KXGbi6=S7=jUA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 12 Jan 2021 09:28:32 -0800
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>,
        Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        linux-toolchains@...r.kernel.org,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
        Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: Aarch64 EXT4FS inode checksum failures - seems to be weak memory
 ordering issues

On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 5:20 AM Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de> wrote:
>
> > Variable declarations in for-loops is the only one I can think of. I
> > think that would clean up some code (and some macros), but might not
> > be compelling on its own.
>
> Anonymous structs/unions.  I used to have a use case for that in
> struct efi_dev_path in include/linux/efi.h, but Ard Biesheuvel
> refactored it in a gnu89-compatible way for v5.7 with db8952e7094f.

We use anonymous structs/unions extensively and all over the place already.

We've had a couple of special cases where some versions of gcc didn't
do things right iirc (it was something like "nested anonymous struct"
or similar), but those weren't actually about the feature itself.

Was it perhaps the nested case you were thinking of? If so, I think
that's not really a --std=gun11 thing, it's more of a "certain
versions of gcc didn't do it at all".

               Linus