linux-kernel - Re: >Re: [RFC] should VM_BUG_ON(cond) really evaluate cond

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: <CA+55aFz=sxRjw6u-ww0P=9hhvWaZP=+QJZ68W+B9WtvQqj9Ogg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 29 Oct 2011 10:34:30 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: >Re: [RFC] should VM_BUG_ON(cond) really evaluate cond

On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 7:55 AM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> Comments? I think I'm open to tested patches..

Here's a *untested* patch.

In particular, I worry that I'd need to add a "#include
<linux/compiler.h>" to some header file, although I suspect it gets
included some way regardless.

And when I say "untested", I mean it. I verified that this makes
*some* difference to the generated code, but I didn't actually check
if it really matters, or if it actually compiles and works in general.

Caveat tester,

                                Linus

View attachment "patch.diff" of type "text/x-patch" (1888 bytes)