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: <45257C65.3030600@goop.org>
Date:	Thu, 05 Oct 2006 14:43:01 -0700
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
CC:	"Ananiev, Leonid I" <leonid.i.ananiev@...el.com>,
	tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix WARN_ON / WARN_ON_ONCE regression

Andrew Morton wrote:
> So how's this look?
>   

Looks fine to me.  Other than the general question of why WARN_ON* 
returns a value at all, and if so, does the final unlikely() really do 
anything.

> I worry a bit that someone's hardware might go and prefetch that static
> variable even when we didn't ask it to.  Can that happen?
>   

Sure, the CPU has the option, but if it goes around speculatively 
polluting its caches with unused stuff, it isn't going to perform very 
well in general.  So presumably the CPU won't do it unless it really 
thinks it will help.

    J
-
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/