linux-kernel - Re: 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <17646.29510.296315.569294@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com>
Date:	Fri, 25 Aug 2006 13:49:26 +1000
From:	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
To:	"Dong Feng" <middle.fengdong@...il.com>
Cc:	ak@...e.de, "Christoph Lameter" <clameter@....com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Unnecessary Relocation Hiding?

Dong Feng writes:

> Sorry for perhaps extending the specific question to a more generic
> one. In which cases shall we, in current or future development,
> prevent gcc from knowing a pointer-addition in the way RELOC_HIDE? And
> in what cases shall we just write pure C point addition?

Where you are saying to gcc "you think this variable is at this
address, but I know it's actually at this other address over here" you
should use RELOC_HIDE.  Where the addition is being used to get the
address of some part of the object (so the resulting address is still
within the object) you can just use plain addition.

Paul.
-
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/