linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ix86: fix vDSO build

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <53CF897E0200007800024FB4@mail.emea.novell.com>
Date:	Wed, 23 Jul 2014 09:07:58 +0100
From:	"Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...e.com>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	"Andy Lutomirski" <luto@...capital.net>, <mingo@...e.hu>,
	<tglx@...utronix.de>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ix86: fix vDSO build

>>> On 11.07.14 at 00:58, <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> On 07/03/2014 07:35 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Relying on static functions used just once to get inlined (and
>> subsequently have dead code paths eliminated) is wrong: Compilers are
>> free to decide whether they do this, regardless of optimization level.
>> With this not happening for vdso_addr() (observed with gcc 4.1.x), an
>> unresolved reference to align_vdso_addr() causes the build to fail.
> 
> The fix seems odd... more of the flavor of "happens to work" unless I'm
> misunderstanding something.  If this needs to be inlined, wouldn't
> __always_inline make more sense?
> 
> What am I missing?

I think this is a matter of taste: Personally I think __always_inline should
be used rather rarely, as it takes away decisions from the compiler that
it would (generally) be in the better position to make.

Sorry for the late reply (was on vacation),
Jan

--
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/