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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20130103103815.GL2631@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 10:38:15 +0000 From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk> To: kpark3469@...il.com Cc: rostedt@...dmis.org, fweisbec@...il.com, mingo@...hat.com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sahara <keun-o.park@...driver.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm: make return_address available for ARM_UNWIND On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 07:12:29PM +0900, kpark3469@...il.com wrote: > -#if defined(CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER) && !defined(CONFIG_ARM_UNWIND) > +#if defined(CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER) || defined(CONFIG_ARM_UNWIND) > /* > * return_address uses walk_stackframe to do it's work. If both > * CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER=y and CONFIG_ARM_UNWIND=y walk_stackframe uses unwind > - * information. For this to work in the function tracer many functions would > - * have to be marked with __notrace. So for now just depend on > - * !CONFIG_ARM_UNWIND. So what have you done about the issue referred in this comment? Or do you believe that fixing warnings (even if they are explicit #warning statements) is far more important than code being functionally correct? -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists