[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1217091637.5971.63.camel@brick>
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 10:00:37 -0700
From: Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Olaf Hering <olaf@...fle.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Fw: asm-x86/byteorder.h, CONFIG_X86_BSWAP leaks to userland
On Sat, 2008-07-26 at 12:48 -0400, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Harvey Harrison wrote:
> >>
> >> An undefined CONFIG_foo defaults to 0 (I think), so bswap is never used.
> >> Is this done on purpose, or can the CONFIG_ foo be moved inside
> >> __KERNEL__ somehow?
> >
> > I believe it's there to prevent the bswap instruction from being used on
> > early x86_32 models (i386/i486). As this will be 0 in userspace it is
> > effectively never using the bswap instruction for these routines.
> >
>
> i386, specifically.
>
> However, you shouldn't leak these symbols to userspace; there is a
> warning option in gcc for undefined macros, and it's a *good thing* to
> use it. Causing warnings in user space is not nice.
True, but the existing header in Linus' tree does exactly this, so unless
you beat me to it, I'll have a look to see what can be done here.
>
> > I'm not sure if it's time yet to make the bswap ones be exported, as they
> > would no longer be usable for those early machines. X86 guys CC:d.
>
> On i386 we still default to i386-compatible binaries; I *think* gcc has
> macros telling you if the user has used -march=i486 etc.
>
Hmm, I wasn't aware of that, hopefully google will oblige.
Cheers,
Harvey
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists