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: <200608250818.49139.ak@suse.de>
Date:	Fri, 25 Aug 2006 08:18:49 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
To:	"Dong Feng" <middle.fengdong@...il.com>
Cc:	"Paul Mackerras" <paulus@...ba.org>,
	"Christoph Lameter" <clameter@....com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Unnecessary Relocation Hiding?

On Friday 25 August 2006 03:30, Dong Feng wrote:
> 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?
> 
> After all, we are writing an OS in C not in pure assembly, so I am
> just trying to learn some generial rules to mimize the raw assembly in
> development.

In theory anything that is undefined in the C standard should be avoided
because gcc is free to make assumptions about it and generate unexpected 
code.

In practice Linux does a lot of not-quite-legal-in-portable-C things
already, but tries to avoid areas that are known to have miscompiled in
the past.

Best is to avoid undefined behaviour in new code.

-Andi
-
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/