linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] bitops: remove "optimizations"

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:	Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:58:24 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	tglx@...utronix.de
Cc:	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, harvey.harrison@...il.com,
	mingo@...e.hu, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bitops: remove "optimizations"

From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:51:51 +0200 (CEST)

> The question is, whether it broke things or just unearthed some bug
> hidden elsewhere.

So I did a quick test, just #if 0'ing out the optimization inline
portions of the find_first_bit() code in linux/bitops.h, and forcing
it to always unconditionally call __find_first_bit() fixes the
regression.

Given that others who tested could not find one case where the
optimization cases actually applied, and it's breaking things for me,
my theory is that it's triggering for some obscure case on sparc64 and
thus showing a bug in these optimizations since in practice I'm the
only person to actually test this new code.
--
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/