[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200706151527.45143.ak@suse.de>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:27:44 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dave Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Introduce compat_u64 and compat_s64 types
> And debug simulators that can be made to trap such accesses, and in most
> cases processors which fault such an access (so you find it) but don't
> provide enough information to restart.
>
> The testing isn't that hard for a given embedded system and having done
> work Linux does not need other changes re-breaking things.
Hopefully everybody who deploys these systems knows this. It seems
like a open death trap to me, especially since the consequences
are so severe: remote packet of death, could be a recall for
a network conntected embedded device that doesn't easily allow firmware
update. And they would rightfully blame Linux.
It would be much safer if the parts of the stack that weren't
audited/tested were marked this way and check for BROKEN_UNALIGNED or similar.
Also frankly I'm surprised that whoever designed these systems
didn't learn from the old M68000 who made this mistake the first time.
-Andi
-
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