linux-kernel - Re: Definition of BUG on x86

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, 19 Feb 2009 08:32:47 -0800
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC:	Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@...e.cz>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Definition of BUG on x86

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> could we just do:
>
> 	__builtin_trap();
> 	for (;;);
>
> and _now_ GCC would optimize away the infinite loop? And if it 
> does something silly in a future release, we'd either get a 
> build error or we'd run into the infinite loop for sure.
>   

I guess that would work.  And we have plenty of infrastructure and 
precedent for compiler-dependent defines like this.

    J
--
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/