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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <4B1FA6B6.8070701@cs.helsinki.fi>
Date:	Wed, 09 Dec 2009 15:31:34 +0200
From:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kmemcheck: make bitfield annotations truly no-ops when
 disabled

Andrew Morton kirjoitti:
> 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?

AFAICT, it dates back to 2.6.31 when kmemcheck was introduced in 
mainline. Vegard?

> Should we backport this into 2.6.32.x?

I guess so. Eric, how bad is the regression?

			Pekka
--
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/