linux-kernel - Re: Random panic in load

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]

Date:	Sat, 26 Jul 2014 15:55:03 -0400
From:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@...ppelsdorf.de>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
	Michel Dänzer <michel@...nzer.net>,
	Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Debian GCC Maintainers <debian-gcc@...ts.debian.org>,
	Debian Kernel Team <debian-kernel@...ts.debian.org>
Subject: Re: Random panic in load_balance() with 3.16-rc

On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 09:35:57PM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> 
> But fortunately the workaround for the new inode.c bug is the same as
> for the original bug: -fno-var-tracking-assignments. 
> 
> It would make sense to enabled it unconditionally for all debug
> configurations for now.

What's the downside of enabling this unconditionally on a compiler
with the bug fixed?  I assume a certain amount of optimization will
lost, but is it significant/measurable?

					- Ted
--
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/