linux-kernel - Re: Kernel Bug in 2.4.35 when compiled gcc>=4.2.0 and -march=c3

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:	Mon, 06 Aug 2007 11:01:16 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
CC:	Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Axel Reinhold <axel@...akout.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Kernel Bug in 2.4.35 when compiled gcc>=4.2.0 and -march=c3

Willy Tarreau wrote:
> 
> I'm well aware of that, even in the example I wrote to reproduce the issue
> and posted to gcc's bugzilla, I clearly have one function prototype and a
> separate asm statement which contained a label with the function's name.
> 
> So in my opinion, the code above is not buggy. It's dirty (though I did
> not find how to produce the equivalent in a different manner).
> 

Well, top-level assembly is usually nasty.  Setting the section in the
assembly statement as you said is probably the only thing you *can* do.

I don't think there is any requirement that top-level assembly
statements get the section set to .text on their behalf.

	-hpa
-
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/