linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Put the BUG __FILE__ and __LINE_

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]

Date:	Thu, 28 Sep 2006 21:44:18 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <ak@....de>
To:	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
Cc:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Put the BUG __FILE__ and __LINE__ info out of line

On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 04:30:19PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 03:30:12AM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> > > Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > >But no out of line section. So overall it's smaller, although the cache 
> > > >footprint
> > > >is 2 bytes larger. But then is 2 bytes larger really an issue? We don't 
> > > >have
> > > >_that_ many BUGs anyways.
> > > >  
> > > 
> > > I think the out of line section is a feature; no point in crufting up 
> > > the icache with BUG gunk, especially since a number of them are on 
> > > fairly hot paths.
> > 
> > It's 10 bytes per BUG. 
> 
> Or 9 bytes per BUG: I protested about the disassembly problem back
> when the minimized BUG() first went in, and have been using "ljmp"
> in my i386 builds ever since:

Good point.

Need to check if that works on x86-64 too. 

-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/