linux-kernel - Re: [IDE] Fix build 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: <Pine.LNX.4.64N.0710251809070.24086@blysk.ds.pg.gda.pl>
Date:	Thu, 25 Oct 2007 18:12:34 +0100 (BST)
From:	"Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...ux-mips.org>
To:	Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>
cc:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mips@...ux-mips.org
Subject: Re: [IDE] Fix build bug

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Ralf Baechle wrote:

> >  Somebody wants to mix up read-only and read/write data in the same 
> > section and GCC quite legitimately complains about it.  You cannot have 
> > both at a time.
> 
> My interpretation is that it would be perfectly ok for a C compiler to
> do minimal handling of const by only throwing errors for attempted
> assignments to const objects but otherwise treating them as if they
> were non-const, that is for example putting them into an r/w section.

 That would probably be valid (any C standard expert please correct me if 
I am wrong), but the approach looks like: since we have the capability in 
the hardware and the OS, then why not actually enforce the rule at the run 
time as well?

  Maciej
-
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/