linux-kernel - Re: huge gcc 4.1.{0,1} _

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:	Thu, 1 May 2008 18:49:56 -0400
From:	Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Venki Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, bunk@...nel.org,
	davem@...emloft.net, trini@...nel.crashing.org, mingo@...e.hu,
	tglx@...utronix.de, hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	suresh.b.siddha@...el.com
Subject: Re: huge gcc 4.1.{0,1} __weak problem

On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 03:42:38PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Is there some vaguely maintainable workaround we can do?  If the problem
> only affects completely-empty weak functions then we could put something in
> them to make them non-empty?

for (;;); isn't enough, the function would be still considered const and by
4.1.0 and some 4.1.1 incorrectly optimized out, without regard to weak
attribute.
But e.g.
asm ("");
should be enough.

	Jakub
--
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/