linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86, hweight: Fix UML boot crash

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: <20100531023212.GA22673@c-98-229-117-200.hsd1.ma.comcast.net>
Date:	Sun, 30 May 2010 22:32:12 -0400
From:	Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@....com>,
	Toralf Förster <toralf.foerster@....de>,
	user-mode-linux-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, hweight: Fix UML boot crash

On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 09:39:56PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> Which begs the question why _is_ UML sucking in x86 stuff and can anyone
> provide us with some sensible reasons? Because if there aren't any, it
> is their includes that should be fixed. Let me see what I can do to
> redirect hweight stuff properly...

Generally, UML pulls in the host arch headers because they work.  When
they are only architecture-dependent (and not, say, depending on the
host task struct or something), they're fine.

What's the include path from UML to the x86 hweight stuff?

				Jeff

-- 
Work email - jdike at linux dot intel dot com
--
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/