linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kmemcheck: make bitfield annotations truly no-ops when disabled

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 7 Dec 2009 14:13:56 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
Cc:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kmemcheck: make bitfield annotations truly no-ops when
 disabled

On Sun,  6 Dec 2009 18:42:13 +0100
Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com> wrote:

> It turns out that even zero-sized struct members (int foo[0];) will affect
> the struct layout, causing us in particular to lose 4 bytes in struct sock.
> 
> This patch fixes the regression in CONFIG_KMEMCHECK=n case.

Which kernel version is the regression relative to?

Should we backport this into 2.6.32.x?

If so, we have a slight problem: someone did
s/MAYBE_BUILD_BUG_ON/BUILD_BUG_ON/ in linux-next (I have feeling it was
me ;)) so the patch I applied had that slight massaging.  Perhaps the
-stable stalwarts can take care of that slight difference.

--
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/