linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Fix WARN_ON / WARN_ON

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: <1159919263.8035.65.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:47:43 -0700
From:	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc:	herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, akpm@...l.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, leonid.i.ananiev@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix WARN_ON / WARN_ON_ONCE regression

On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 17:06 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:

> How does the generated code change?  Doesn't evaluating the condition 
> multiple times have the potential to cause problems?
> 

I think if the condition changes between two evaluations, we do have a
problem with my fix.  I don't have a better idea to avoid using a local
variable to store the condition.  I think we should at least reverse the
WARN_ON/WARN_ON_ONCE patch if a better way cannot be found.

Tim
-
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/