linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: PowerPC WARN_ON_ONCE() after merge of the final tree (tip related)

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:	Wed, 14 Apr 2010 23:55:57 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	mingo@...e.hu
Cc:	sfr@...b.auug.org.au, tglx@...utronix.de, hpa@...or.com,
	peterz@...radead.org, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, fweisbec@...il.com,
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: PowerPC WARN_ON_ONCE() after merge of the final
 tree (tip related)

From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 08:49:40 +0200

> Btw., WARN_ON trapping on PowerPC is clearly a PowerPC bug - there's a good 
> reason we have WARN_ON versus BUG_ON - it should be fixed.

I disagree, an implementation should be allowed to use the most
efficient implementation possible for both interfaces.

I would be using traps for both on sparc64 if that were really
feasible on sparc64 (and actually with gcc-4.5's "asm goto" it might
actually be now)

The WARN and BUG macros, when implemented without traps, have serious
implications for overall code size and register pressure.
--
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/