linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: Simplify calls to cpuid by using + for in/out 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20090809183443.GA24130@feather>
Date:	Sun, 9 Aug 2009 11:34:43 -0700
From:	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...nel.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Simplify calls to cpuid by using + for in/out
 constraints

On Sun, Aug 09, 2009 at 10:19:13AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> I would prefer to not apply this patch unless there is a good reason.
> The existing code isn't broken, and any time we change an asm()
> statement we risk triggering bugs in some obscure gcc version.

Fair enough.

> It isn't, of course, that the proposed change is wrong, but simply that
> it is an unnecessary change, and since it involves asm() statements I
> would like to reject it for churn reduction reasons.  Especially so
> since it is "build-tested only".

Given the risk of "bugs in some obscure gcc version", it doesn't seem
like running it or even comparing for identical code would validate
anything more than the correctness of the gcc version currently in use.

- Josh triplett
--
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/