linux-kernel - Re: initialization of static per-cpu variables

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: <200805221820.07290.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Date:	Thu, 22 May 2008 18:20:06 +1000
From:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To:	"Vegard Nossum" <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
Cc:	"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: initialization of static per-cpu variables

On Thursday 22 May 2008 04:28:02 Vegard Nossum wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I encountered this comment in kernel/softirq.c:
>
> /* Some compilers disobey section attribute on statics when not
>    initialized -- RR */
> static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct tasklet_head, tasklet_vec) = { NULL };
> static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct tasklet_head, tasklet_hi_vec) = { NULL };
>
> So I assume it's the combination of static and whatever section
> DFINE_PER_CPU puts the variable in which is the problem.
>
> However, there's a LOT of these "static DEFINE_PER_CPU" without any
> initializer in the rest of the code, e.g.:

Yep, it was an old toolchain used by Sparc: DaveM found this one.  As you say, 
it's ancient: I'm happy to queue a cleanup patch now everyone is on a modern 
compiler.

Thanks,
Rusty.
--
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/