linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] X86: use explicit register name for get/put

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]

Message-ID: <4B1C01F4.8020304@zytor.com>
Date:	Sun, 06 Dec 2009 11:11:48 -0800
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
CC:	mingo@...e.hu, jirislaby@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] X86: use explicit register name for get/put_user

On 12/06/2009 01:30 AM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> 
> I don't know if this could ever cause any problems, but changing
> the input to an explicit register ("a") makes it cleaner in my eyes.
> There is no need of the back reference.
> 

It can't: the backreference refers to only the information that is in
the register constraint, not to anything else.  I really would prefer
avoiding any changes to working code that aren't justified, simply
because every time we change an asm() we risk tickling a new obscure bug
in some old version of gcc.

As such,

Nacked-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.

--
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/