linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/19] UML - Tidy stub management code

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.00.0804291556550.2548@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:57:24 +0800 (CST)
From:	WANG Cong <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:	Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>
cc:	WANG Cong <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>, akpm@...l.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	user-mode-linux-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/19] UML - Tidy stub management code

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008, Jeff Dike wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 06:01:12PM +0800, WANG Cong wrote:
>> > +	/*
>> > +	 * When the stub stops, we find the following values on the
>> > +	 * beginning of the stack:
>> > +	 * (long) return_value
>> > +	 * (long) offset to failed sycall data (0 if no error)
>> > +	 */
>> > +	ret = *((unsigned long *) stack);
>> 
>> 
>> I am afraid the value will be truncated on 64bit machine, since
>> 'ret' is 'int' while 'stack' points to an 'unsigned long'.
>> 
>> Is this expected?
>
> That's dubious, but I don't think it breaks anything.  On LE, *(int *)
> and *(long *) will give you the same answer, and the value here is an
> error code, which fits into 32 bits.

So it's safe here.

OK. Thanks!

--
Hi, I'm a .signature virus, please copy/paste me to help me spread
all over the world.
--
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/