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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 08:41:46 -0700 From: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com> To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, leonid.i.ananiev@...el.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix WARN_ON / WARN_ON_ONCE regression On Tue, 2006-10-10 at 09:04 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > Holy crap! I wonder where else in the kernel gcc is doing this. (of > course I'm using gcc4 so I don't know). Is there another gcc attribute > to actually tell gcc that a variable is really mostly read only (besides > placing it in a mostly read only elf section)? > > What was wrong with the original WARN_ON_ONCE with > > if (unlikely(condition) && __warn_once) > > This didn't have the cache crash problem too, did it? > I don't have a gcc3 around to test. In the original WARN_ON_ONCE, gcc3 only writes to __warn_once when (condition) is true. So it does not cause cache bouncing by always writing to __warn_once. 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists