linux-kernel - Re: RELEASE BLOCKER: Linux doesn't follow x86/x86-64 ABI wrt direction flag

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: <20080305231642.GG17267@synopsys.com>
Date:	Wed, 5 Mar 2008 15:16:43 -0800
From:	Joe Buck <Joe.Buck@...opsys.COM>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	matz@...e.de, hpa@...or.com, richard.guenther@...il.com,
	hubicka@....cz, aurelien@...el32.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	gcc@....gnu.org
Subject: Re: RELEASE BLOCKER: Linux doesn't follow x86/x86-64 ABI wrt direction flag

On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 03:10:12PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Michael Matz <matz@...e.de>
> Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 00:07:39 +0100 (CET)
> 
> > The fix lies in the kernel, the work-around in gcc.
> 
> This depends upon how you interpret this ABI situation.
> 
> There is at least some agreement that how things have
> actually been implemented by these kernels for more
> than 15 years trumps whatever a paper standard states.

We had a similar argument about the undefinedness of signed int
overflow.  That's what the standard says, yet code that assumes
otherwise is pervasive, including in gcc itself.

If a standard is widely violated in a very consistent way, the violation
in effect becomes standard.
--
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/