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 17:41:04 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
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


* Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> wrote:

> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> Well, the important question is thatGCC will optimize out whatever 
>> comes after the __builtin_trap(), right? To guarantee an assert we can 
>> do something like:
>>
>>  	__builtin_trap();
>> 	panic("should never get here");
>>
>> to guarantee a message. (But realistically GCC will at most generate a 
>> build error.)
>
> Ah, right, I remember the problem.  There's no guaranteed way 
> of getting the address of the ud2a instruction __builtin_trap 
> generates to put it into the bug table.

hm, indeed.

So that 2 byte overhead will be there for now, until gcc (or 
some other compiler) is improved.

	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/