linux-kernel - Re: kernel + gcc 4.1 = several problems

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20070104191046.GV17561@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Thu, 4 Jan 2007 19:10:46 +0000
From:	Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>
Cc:	Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Albert Cahalan <acahalan@...il.com>, akpm@...l.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, s0348365@....ed.ac.uk,
	bunk@...sta.de, mikpe@...uu.se
Subject: Re: kernel + gcc 4.1 = several problems

On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 09:47:01AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> NOBODY will guarantee you that they follow all standards to the letter. 
> Some use compiler extensions knowingly, but pretty much _everybody_ ends 
> up depending on subtle issues without even realizing it. It's almost 
> impossible to write a real program that has no bugs, and if they don't 
> show up in testing (because the compiler didn't generate buggy assembly 
> code from source code that had the _potential_ for bugs), they often won't 
> get fixed.
> 
> The kernel does things like compare pointers across objects, and the 
> kernel EXPECTS it to work. I seriously doubt that the kernel is even 
> unusual in this. The common way to avoid AB-BA deadlocks in any threaded 
> code (whether kernel or user space) is to just take two locks in a 
> specific order, and the common way to do that for locks of the same type 
> is simply to compare the addresses).
> 
> The fact that this is "undefined" behaviour matters not a _whit_. Not for 
> the kernel, and I bet not for a lot of other applications either.

True, but we'd better understand what assumptions we are making.  I have
seen patches seriously attempting to _subtract_ unrelated pointers.  And
that simply doesn't work for obvious reasons...
-
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/