linux-kernel - Re: [patch] use __asm__ and __volatile_

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: <20070618190009.GB25340@uranus.ravnborg.org>
Date:	Mon, 18 Jun 2007 21:00:09 +0200
From:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
	rmk@....linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [patch] use __asm__ and __volatile__ in i386/arm/s390 byteorder.h

On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 07:34:50PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 06:33:28PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > This changes asm() to __asm__() and volatile to __volatile__ so that these
> > headers can be used with gcc's -std=c99.
> 
> We should not allow inline assemly in the exported part of userspace headers
> at all.  These headers must only include defintions for the kernel <-> user
> ABI, and should not include code at all.
Do you imply that if we see asm or __asm__ in user space headers we ougth
to warn about it?
Seems at least sensible to me but if we introduce such a check we should
kill all offenders first - which Mike's patches seems to trigger for some part.

	Sam
-
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/