linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Protect prefetch macro arguments.

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: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1003261421470.3721@i5.linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Fri, 26 Mar 2010 14:23:34 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	David Daney <ddaney@...iumnetworks.com>
cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Protect prefetch macro arguments.



On Fri, 26 Mar 2010, David Daney wrote:

> On 03/26/2010 02:04 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On Fri, 26 Mar 2010, David Daney wrote:
> > > 
> > > The GCC built-in __builtin_prefetch() is a vargs function.  If we
> > > don't wrap the macro parameter in parentheses, a comma operator in the
> > > actual argument list might cause unintended parameters to be passed to
> > > __builtin_prefetch().
> > 
> > This seems totally pointless and actively wrong.
> 
> Pointless, perhaps.  But 'actively wrong'?  Are you sure about that?

Yes, I'm sure about that.

Your commit message was actively misleading, and the end result is worse 
than the original and shows a lack of understanding of the C preprocessor. 

IOW, very much "actively wrong".

		Linus
--
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/