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  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:	Tue, 20 Oct 2009 21:58:35 +0800
From:	Américo Wang <>
To:	Rusty Russell <>
Cc:	Hollis Blanchard <>,
	Jan Beulich <>,,,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] BUILD_BUG_ON: make it handle more cases

On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 02:15:33PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
>BUILD_BUG_ON used to use the optimizer to do code elimination or fail
>at link time; it was changed to first the size of a negative array (a
>nicer compile time error), then (in
>8c87df457cb58fe75b9b893007917cf8095660a0) to a bitfield.
>bitfields: needs a literal constant at parse time, and can't be put under
>	"if (__builtin_constant_p(x))" for example.
>negative array: can handle anything, but if the compiler can't tell it's
>	a constant, silently has no effect.
>link time: breaks link if the compiler can't determine the value, but the
>	linker output is not usually as informative as a compiler error.
>If we use the negative-array-size method *and* the link time trick,
>we get the ability to use BUILD_BUG_ON() under __builtin_constant_p()
>branches, and maximal ability for the compiler to detect errors at
>build time.
>Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <>
>diff --git a/include/linux/kernel.h b/include/linux/kernel.h
>--- a/include/linux/kernel.h
>+++ b/include/linux/kernel.h
>@@ -683,12 +683,6 @@ struct sysinfo {
> 	char _f[20-2*sizeof(long)-sizeof(int)];	/* Padding: libc5 uses this.. */
> };
>-/* Force a compilation error if condition is true */
>-#define BUILD_BUG_ON(condition) ((void)BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO(condition))
>-/* Force a compilation error if condition is constant and true */
>-#define MAYBE_BUILD_BUG_ON(cond) ((void)sizeof(char[1 - 2 * !!(cond)]))
> /* Force a compilation error if condition is true, but also produce a
>    result (of value 0 and type size_t), so the expression can be used
>    e.g. in a structure initializer (or where-ever else comma expressions
>@@ -696,6 +690,33 @@ struct sysinfo {
> #define BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO(e) (sizeof(struct { int:-!!(e); }))
> #define BUILD_BUG_ON_NULL(e) ((void *)sizeof(struct { int:-!!(e); }))
>+ * BUILD_BUG_ON - break compile if a condition is true.
>+ * @cond: the condition which the compiler should know is false.
>+ *
>+ * If you have some code which relies on certain constants being equal, or
>+ * other compile-time-evaluated condition, you should use BUILD_BUG_ON to
>+ * detect if someone changes it.
>+ *
>+ * The implementation uses gcc's reluctance to create a negative array, but
>+ * gcc (as of 4.4) only emits that error for obvious cases (eg. not arguments
>+ * to inline functions).  So as a fallback we use the optimizer; if it can't
>+ * prove the condition is false, it will cause a link error on the undefined
>+ * "__build_bug_on_failed".  This error message can be harder to track down
>+ * though, hence the two different methods.
>+ */
>+#ifndef __OPTIMIZE__
>+#define BUILD_BUG_ON(condition) ((void)sizeof(char[1 - 2*!!(condition)]))
>+extern int __build_bug_on_failed;

Hmm, what exactly is __build_bug_on_failed?

>+#define BUILD_BUG_ON(condition)					\
>+	do {							\
>+		((void)sizeof(char[1 - 2*!!(condition)]));	\
>+		if (condition) __build_bug_on_failed = 1;	\
>+	} while(0)
>+#define MAYBE_BUILD_BUG_ON(condition) BUILD_BUG_ON(condition)
> /* Trap pasters of __FUNCTION__ at compile-time */
> #define __FUNCTION__ (__func__)
>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>the body of a message to
>More majordomo info at
>Please read the FAQ at

Live like a child, think like the god.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists