linux-kernel - Re: um: WARNING: at kernel/futex.c:786 __unqueue

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: <AANLkTik6oHOOk+1paSmCs=0c03_J10wGBFrRMQw-Jo86@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 17 Mar 2011 18:43:05 +0100
From:	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	richard -rw- weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>,
	laijs@...fujitsu.com, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	user-mode-linux-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, dvhart@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: um: WARNING: at kernel/futex.c:786 __unqueue_futex

On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 18:02, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> Le jeudi 17 mars 2011 à 12:55 -0400, Steven Rostedt a écrit :
>> Here, test this patch. I'm in the process of committing it now.
>> It will be two patches, one for the WARN_ON_SMP() change, the other for
>> the futex change.
>>
>> -- Steve
>>
>> diff --git a/include/asm-generic/bug.h b/include/asm-generic/bug.h
>> index c2c9ba0..25f1e9e 100644
>> --- a/include/asm-generic/bug.h
>> +++ b/include/asm-generic/bug.h
>> @@ -168,7 +168,7 @@ extern void warn_slowpath_null(const char *file, const int line);
>>  #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
>>  # define WARN_ON_SMP(x)                      WARN_ON(x)
>>  #else
>> -# define WARN_ON_SMP(x)                      do { } while (0)
>> +# define WARN_ON_SMP(x)                      ({0;})
>>  #endif
>>
>
> You meant :
>
> # define WARN_ON_SMP(x)                 ({x;})
>
> or
>
> # define WARN_ON_SMP(x)   do { } while (x, 0)
>
> ?

I don't know. It's not clear to me if "WARN_ON_SMP(x)" should always return "x",
or only on SMP?

E.g.

    if (WARN_ON_SMP(x)) {
       // Should we get here if "x" is true?
       // Or only if CONFIG_SMP and "x" are both true?
    }

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds
--
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/