linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] fork: avoid weak function arch_dup_task

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]

Message-ID: <4DBDE5C0.1030907@zytor.com>
Date:	Sun, 01 May 2011 15:59:12 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	Hans Rosenfeld <hans.rosenfeld@....com>, brgerst@...il.com,
	tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...e.hu, suresh.b.siddha@...el.com,
	eranian@...gle.com, robert.richter@....com,
	Andreas.Herrmann3@....com, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] fork: avoid weak function arch_dup_task_struct

On 05/01/2011 12:25 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 16:26:35 +0200 Hans Rosenfeld <hans.rosenfeld@....com> wrote:
> 
>> Avoid potential gcc bug by not using a weak function for
>> arch_dup_task_struct. Use an #ifdef'ed static function for
>> archs that don't have a special arch_dup_task_struct implementation.
> 
> The patch is unreviewable (and hence unusable) if you don't describe
> this "potential gcc bug".
>

http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0804.3/3202.html

	-hpa

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.

--
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/