linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] bitfields API

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]

Date:	Thu, 28 Aug 2008 23:54:43 +0300
From:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
CC:	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
	Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] bitfields API

Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> Heh, heh, one alternative is to have a kmemcheck_memset() thingy that  
>> unconditionally zeroes bit fields and maybe is a no-op when kmemcheck is  
>> disabled.
> 
> This sounds as if this might cause bugs to disappear when debugging gets 
> turned on?

Yeah, I suppose. The problem doing that unconditionally is that it 
increases kernel text slightly on some architectures (e.g. sparc). 
However, as long as you use the KMEMCHECK_BIT_FIELD annotation only in 
places that give you false positives, it's we should be safe.

		Pekka
--
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/