linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: triage for March 18, 2012

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: <161084.1332177826@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date:	Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:23:46 -0400
From:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:	Tony Breeds <tony@...eyournoodle.com>,
	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: triage for March 18, 2012

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:21:31 -0000, David Howells said:

> Here's a patch I got from Nick Clifton to fix 64-bit binutils to handle
> representing things like 0xfffffff1 as a 32-bit negative immediate argument.
> It has been applied upstream.

> ! #if 1
> !       /* Handle the case where a hex value is parsed on a 64-bit host.
> ! 	 A value like 0xffffe000 is clearly intended to be a negative
> ! 	 16-bit value, but on a 64-bit host it will be parsed by gas
> ! 	 as 0x00000000ffffe000.

Umm.. it's not clear to *me* that it's intended to be a negative 16 bit?  Or am I just
missing context not present in the patch?

(I have no idea if the rest of the patch is OK or not, but that comment didn't give
me warm fuzzies....)

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped