linux-kernel - Re: WARN_ON() which sometimes sucks

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]

Date:	Wed, 1 Aug 2007 14:20:48 +1000
From:	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>, Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...ru>,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	herbert@...dor.apana.org.au
Subject: Re: WARN_ON() which sometimes sucks

Linus Torvalds writes:

> Umm. The WARN_ON() might actually get a "long long" value for all we know. 
> Ie it's perfectly possible that the WARN_ON might look like
> 
> 	/* Must not have high bits on */
> 	WARN_ON(offset & 0xffffffff00000000);
> 
> which on a 32-bit pcc would apparently do the wrong thing entirely as it 
> stands now. No?

Actually, because of the typeof in the powerpc WARN_ON, I think it
would fail to build since we'd be passing a long long value to an
inline asm, or at least I hope it would fail to build. :)

But your criticism is correct with regard to the powerpc BUG_ON, and
you're correct that a long wouldn't be sufficient if someone passes in
a long long.  Oh well.  I guess we just wear the extra two
instructions.

Paul.
-
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/