| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20090607125642.GH8633@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 13:56:42 +0100 From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk> To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>, Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] kmemcheck: make bitfield annotations be valid C On Sun, Jun 07, 2009 at 11:20:54AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > According to Al Viro, the syntax we were using (putting #ifdef inside > > > > macro arguments) was not valid C. He also suggested using begin/end > > > > markers instead, which is what we do now. > > > > > > > > Reported-by: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> > > > > Signed-off-by: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com> > > > > > > Acked-by: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi> > > > > > > Al, are you okay with this? > > > > Looks sane > > Thanks. > > This removes the blocker bug from kmemcheck and we can try to push > it in the .31 merge window. Does the level and amount of bit-field > annotations look unduly troublesome to you? If we merge kmemcheck > then we'll have these type annotations forever. What had been posted in this thread didn't look over the top for me, but it's really a question for maintainers of the affected 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