linux-kernel - Re: Please revert 709f744 (x86: bitops asm constraint fixes)

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: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0805070940060.3318@apollo.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:	Wed, 7 May 2008 09:43:51 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>
cc:	odie@...aau.dk, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: Please revert 709f744 (x86: bitops asm constraint fixes)

On Wed, 7 May 2008, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> 06.05.08 14:01 >>>
> >Jan, any ideas what's wrong with your commit?
> 
> No, I have no idea at all (apart from considering mis-compilation as you
> did. The best path I could suggest is to try and nail this down to one
> (or more, if that happens to be the case) function(s) having been
> changed - this is mostly because part of the changes are really
> tightening things (which therefore I would think ought to be kept),
> while the change to __test_and_change_bit() really weakens things
> (which I nevertheless continue to think is correct and consistent with
> other functions, but which then would be the primary suspect). Of
> course, since no-one else has seen this so far, this would need to be
> done by Simon.
> Once down to a single (hopefully) function, it might be possible to just
> statically compare the two vmlinux-es to perhaps spot whether this
> indeed is mis-compilation.

Jan,

can you please provide a step by step conversion of those constraints
on top of the revert. I'm a bit wary about this whole business as such
constraint problems might hit us elsewhere as well.

Thanks,
	tglx
--
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/