linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] UML: fix missing non-blocking I/O, now DEBUG

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: <20070612004804.GA9871@c2.user-mode-linux.org>
Date:	Mon, 11 Jun 2007 20:48:04 -0400
From:	Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>
To:	Eduard-Gabriel Munteanu <maxdamage@...din.ro>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] UML: fix missing non-blocking I/O, now DEBUG_SHIRQ works

On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 01:39:25AM +0300, Eduard-Gabriel Munteanu wrote:
> The cast isn't done right. Doing "fd = (long) dev_id;" doesn't help, 
> since you pass fd to mconsole_get_request() as is. And 
> mconsole_get_request() expects an integer:
> int mconsole_get_request(int fd, struct mc_request *req)

gcc will trim a long to an integer correctly.  You can pass a long to
an integer without casting.

> This will generate at least a warning on arches where sizeof(int) != 
> sizeof(long). 

No it won't.  UML builds without warnings here on x86_64.

> And by the way, AFAIK, GCC has the habit of breaking compatibility with 
> some userspace apps when a new GCC major version is released. And, 
> AFAIK, they're moving towards standards, so relying on GCC's 
> "guarantees" may backfire.

The GCC guarantee I'm talking about it LP64 - I'm highly confident
that's not changing any time soon.

> >>You're calling glibc functions
> >>with that fd as a parameter. On some arches, compiling will issue
> >>warnings or simply fail. 
> >
> >Which ones?
> >
> 
> An example is sparc64:
> quote from
> >>http://lxr.linux.no/source/include/asm-sparc64/types.h#L49

What warnings does this produce?  These are the same sizes as x86_64
(and every other 64-bit arch that Linux runs on, I bet), where this
code compiles without warning.

> Really, a kmalloc() isn't such a big deal, it only happens once and 
> we're not in interrupt context.

It's not the runtime cost - it's the extra code.

> One the other hand, ensuring safety and 
> portability on other arches is something that needs to be taken care
> of.

You haven't demonstrated any safety or portability problems yet.

				Jeff

-- 
Work email - jdike at linux dot intel dot com
-
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/