linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH -tip 0/4] x86: signal handler improvement

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: <20080923085518.GA29703@elte.hu>
Date:	Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:55:18 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Hiroshi Shimamoto <h-shimamoto@...jp.nec.com>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH -tip 0/4] x86: signal handler improvement


* Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:

> could we perhaps first finish unifying them into signal.c, and then 
> introduce __put_user_cerr() in signal_32/64.c?

i've got an API suggestion as well. Instead of:

-               err |= __put_user(UC_FP_XSTATE, &frame->uc.uc_flags);
+               __put_user_cerr(UC_FP_XSTATE, &frame->uc.uc_flags, err);

could you instead please make it:

+               __put_user_cerr(UC_FP_XSTATE, &frame->uc.uc_flags, &err);

i.e. pass in 'err' as a reference. This makes it clear to the casual 
reader, in a C calling convention sense, that there's a side-effect to 
'err'. [ There should be no change to the resulting code as 
__put_user_cerr() is a macro. ]

	Ingo
--
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/