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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 19:59:29 -0600 From: Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com> To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> Subject: Re: [patch 1/3] move WARN_ON() out of line On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 01:56 +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > Subject: move WARN_ON() out of line > From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com> > CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> > CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> > > A quick grep shows that there are currently 1145 instances of WARN_ON > in the kernel. Currently, WARN_ON is pretty much entirely inlined, > which makes it hard to enhance it without growing the size of the kernel > (and getting Andrew unhappy). > > This patch moves WARN_ON() out of line entirely. I've considered keeping > the test inline and moving only the slowpath out of line, but I decided > against that: an out of line test reduces the pressure on the CPUs > branch predictor logic and gives smaller code, while a function call > to a fixed location is quite fast. Likewise I've considered doing something > similar to BUG() (eg use a trapping instruction) but that's not really > better (it needs the test inline again and recovering from an invalid > instruction isn't quite fun). > > The code size reduction of this patch was about 6.5Kb (on a distro style > .config): > > text data bss dec hex filename > 3096493 293455 2760704 6150652 5dd9fc vmlinux.before > 3090006 293455 2760704 6144165 5dc0a5 vmlinux.after > > Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com> I hate the do_foo naming scheme (how about __warn_on?), but otherwise: Acked-by: Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com> > + printk(KERN_WARNING "WARNING: at %s:%d %s()\n", > + __FILE__, __LINE__, __FUNCTION__); > + dump_stack(); While we're here, I'll mention that dump_stack probably ought to take a severity level argument. -- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists