linux-kernel - Unnecessary Relocation Hiding?

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 23 Aug 2006 20:25:03 +0800
From:	"Dong Feng" <middle.fengdong@...il.com>
To:	unlisted-recipients:; (no To-header on input)
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Unnecessary Relocation Hiding?

Hi, all,

I have a question. Why shall we need a RELOC_HIDE() macro in the
definition of per_cpu()? Maybe the question is actually why we need
macro RELOC_HIDE() at all. I changed the following line in
include/asm-generic/percpu.h, from

#define per_cpu(var, cpu) (*RELOC_HIDE(&per_cpu__##var, __per_cpu_offset[cpu]))

to

#define per_cpu(var, cpu) (*((unsigned long)(&per_cpu__##var) +
__per_cpu_offset[cpu]))

I recompiled the code and it works well on my Intel Dual-core laptop.
It essentially the same as to change the definition of RELOC_HIDE(),
from

#define RELOC_HIDE(ptr, off) \
 ({ unsigned long __ptr; \
   __asm__ ("" : "=r"(__ptr) : "0"(ptr)); \
   (typeof(ptr)) (__ptr + (off)); })

to

#define RELOC_HIDE(ptr, off) \
 ({ unsigned long __ptr; \
   __ptr = (unsigned long)ptr; \
   (typeof(ptr)) (__ptr + (off)); })

Why shouldn't we have a pure C solution in this part?

Best Regards.
Feng,Dong
-
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/