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: <20070725172648.GH27237@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jul 2007 18:26:48 +0100
From:	Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, jeremy@...p.org,
	kaos@....com.au, xyzzy@...akeasy.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] getting rid of stupid loop in BUG()

On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 10:22:15AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >> So we might as well keep the loop, since both are two-byte instructions 
> >> that tell gcc that it will never continue.
> > 
> > Umm...  Actually, we might be able to do something like
> > {
> > 	l: __builtin_trap();
> > 	static struct ... v __attribute__((section(...))) = { &&l, n, file };
> > }
> > 
> > except that it would need block-local labels and those are ugly (so's
> > &&<label>, while we are at it)...
> 
> I thought gcc was buggy when it came to passing &&labels to assembly.

Where do you see passing &&<label> to assembly?  More interesting question
is whether gcc believes it to be const...
-
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/