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: <200805252035.24535.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Date:	Sun, 25 May 2008 20:35:24 +1000
From:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
Cc:	Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: initialization of static per-cpu variables

On Saturday 24 May 2008 00:29:04 Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 06:20:06PM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > 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.
>
> The commit says:
>
>     GCC3.1 apparently gets confused about uninitialized sections
>
> We do still support gcc 3.2 (which is the same as 3.1 except for a C++
> ABI change) as a compiler for the kernel.

Adrian, that's a little silly.  There are obviously bug fixes in 3.2 over 
3.1.0.  Noone has complained about the introduction of multiple other cases 
which would screw things up if they experienced this bug.

Finally, it's a sparc64 problem and DaveM acked already.  That's half the 
userbase!

Cheers,
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/