linux-kernel - Re: [Alternative][PATCH] ACPI / PCI: Set root bridge ACPI handle in advance

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: <6257154.ucqGyPHqkg@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date:	Wed, 26 Dec 2012 23:36:23 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
Cc:	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Jiang Liu <liuj97@...il.com>,
	Myron Stowe <myron.stowe@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [Alternative][PATCH] ACPI / PCI: Set root bridge ACPI handle in advance

On Wednesday, December 26, 2012 12:41:05 PM Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com> wrote:
> >> Do you have a reference for this?  I think this might have been true
> >> in the past, but I don't think it's true for any version of gcc we
> >> support for building Linux.
> >
> > http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0804.3/3600.html
> 
> the problem is already addressed by:
> 
> | commit f9d14250071eda9972e4c9cea745a11185952114
> | Author: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
> | Date:   Fri Jan 2 09:29:43 2009 -0800
> |
> |    Disallow gcc versions 4.1.{0,1}
> |
> |    These compiler versions are known to miscompile __weak functions and
> |    thus generate kernels that don't necessarily work correctly.  If a weak
> |    function is int he same compilation unit as a caller, gcc may end up
> |    inlining it, and thus binding the weak function too early.
> |
> |    See
> |
> |        http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27781
> |
> |    for details.
> 
> so it is ok to put the __weak in the same file now.

Cool, thanks for checking and for the ACK!

Rafael


-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
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/