linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][RFC] getting rid of stupid loop in BUG()

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: <46A62F35.2000501@goop.org>
Date:	Tue, 24 Jul 2007 09:56:21 -0700
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
CC:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] getting rid of stupid loop in BUG()

Al Viro wrote:
> 	AFAICS, the patch below should do it for i386; instead of
> using a dummy loop to tell gcc that this sucker never returns,
> we do
> static void __always_inline __noreturn __BUG(const char *file, int line);
> containing the actual asm we want to insert and define BUG() as
> __BUG(__FILE__, __LINE__).  It looks safe, but I don't claim enough
> experience with gcc __asm__ potential nastiness, so...
>
> Comments, objections?
>   

Does it work?  When I wrote the BUG code I tried this, but gcc kept
warning about "noreturn function returns".  I couldn't work out a way to
convince gcc that the asm is the end of the line.

I'm actually in favour of dropping the loop and the noreturn stuff
altogether.  It means that gcc thinks everything is live at the time of
the BUG, and the debugging info at the point of the ud2a is more useful.

    J
-
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/