linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ARM: BUG() dies silently

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: <BANLkTimJkQ9afnO=6gKiBqWUo+Uv=hWx2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 4 Apr 2011 18:55:31 -0700
From:	Simon Glass <sjg@...omium.org>
To:	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
Cc:	Omar Ramirez Luna <omar.ramirez@...com>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	lk <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	lak <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: BUG() dies silently

On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 12:15 AM, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org> wrote:
> (Please stop top posting)
>
> On 4/1/2011 3:29 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
>> Hi Stephen,
>>
>> Sorry for the confusion, but in fact I was talking about the patch to
>> make ARM use the generic bug handling via an undef instruction instead
>> of calling ______bug() or writing to memory address 0. Please see
>> here:
>>
>> http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/patches/viewpatch.php?id=6808/1
>
> Yes I've seen your patch (and even posted comments on it which have not
> been responded to).

Hi Stephen,

Not yet! Don't worry I will get to it. I like the suggestion and am
pleased that you pointed me to it, thank you.

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but that patch with CONFIG_BUG=n would lead to
> the same error that Omar is seeing because the code only modifies the
> bug infrastructure when CONFIG_BUG=y.

Well if CONFIG_BUG=n then there is no bug infrastructure, The whole
file is skipped and it falls back to the asm-generic/bug.h which has
even more #ifdefs in it. But I think we end up here:

#define BUG() do {} while(0)

After all the patch removes the *(int*)0 = 0 code by virtue of
CONFIG_GENERIC_BUG=y, right? If I have this wrong then I will have to
break out the C preprocessor...

Regards,
Simon

>
> --
> Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
> The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.
>
>
--
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/