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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 15:13:46 -0700 From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> Cc: lkml@...ethan.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Compile Warning] 2.6.30-rc8 build On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 23:06:41 +0100 Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote: > > I don't think there's any way in which gcc can deduce that h->first is > > non-zero on entry to that loop. Even if it inlines > > serial_unlink_irq_chain() into serial8250_shutdown(). > > Why does it care ? > > Suppose the list is empty, n is loaded with NULL > > That follows the BUG_ON path which expands to include a function marked > as not returning Ah, OK. btw, I think there are still several architectures whose BUG() isn't correctly set up to tell gcc that it doesn't return. Not that this is a reason to change the serial code. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists