linux-kernel - Re: bisected boot regression post 2.6.25-rc3.. please revert

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, 3 Mar 2008 10:44:14 -0800 (PST)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, hans.rosenfeld@....com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: bisected boot regression post 2.6.25-rc3.. please revert

On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> 
> interesting observation: if I turn the macros into inlines... the difference
> goes away.
> 
> I'm half tempted to just do it as inline period ... any objections ?

Yes, I object. I want to understand why it would matter. If this is a 
compiler bug, it's a really rather bad one. And if it's just some stupid 
bug in our pmd_bad() macro, I still want to know what the problem was.

Can you compile both ways and look at what changed at the offending site 
(which is apparently "follow_page()")?

And do you have some odd compiler version?

		Linus
--
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/