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

Message-Id: <48217B5F.76E4.0078.0@novell.com>
Date:	Wed, 07 May 2008 08:50:23 +0100
From:	"Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@...ell.com>
To:	"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>
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)

>>> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> 07.05.08 09:43 >>>
>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.

I certainly can, but I can't promise when I'd get to do this (may be days
to weeks - sorry for that).

Jan

--
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/