linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: fix inline assembly constraints

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, 30 Oct 2008 07:51:05 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Jike Song <albcamus@...il.com>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: fix inline assembly constraints

Jike Song wrote:
> 
> Yes, sometimes gcc did have bugs with its obscure inline asm
> conventions. But I think the change of x86-64 atomic operations should
> be OK. Anyway, the "+" constraint is more clear than a "=m" output and
>  a "m" input.
> 
> The 32-bit atomic ops were already changed to "+m".(commit
> b862f3b099f3ea672c7438c0b282ce8201d39dfc)
> 

You *THINK*.  It's very easy to *THINK* that gcc won't do something
utterly moronic, and you'd be wrong.

Just changing it for the sake of churn is pointless... if there is a
bug, then we have to take the risk anyway, but if it is already correct,
then there is no point in provoking a bug.  Not *your* bug, because your
code is correct, but gcc's bug.

FWIW, the reason that code doesn't use "+m" is because a version of gcc
which we no longer support didn't handle it.  That by itself isn't a
reason to keep it, but there is also no reason to just "tidy" it, IMNSHO.

	-hpa
--
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/