linux-kernel - Re: better patch for linux/bitops.h

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:	Thu, 5 May 2016 17:13:53 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	tytso@....edu, Sandy Harris <sandyinchina@...il.com>,
	Jeffrey Walton <noloader@...il.com>,
	John Denker <jsd@...n.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Stephan Mueller <smueller@...onox.de>,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Jason Cooper <cryptography@...edaemon.net>,
	linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: better patch for linux/bitops.h

On 05/05/2016 03:18 PM, tytso@....edu wrote:
> 
> So this is why I tend to take a much more pragmatic viewpoint on
> things.  Sure, it makes sense to pay attention to what the C standard
> writers are trying to do to us; but if we need to suppress certain
> optimizations to write sane kernel code --- I'm ok with that.  And
> this is why using a trust-but-verify on a specific set of compilers
> and ranges of compiler versions is a really good idea....
> 

For the record, the "portable" construct has apparently only been
supported since gcc 4.6.3.

	-hpa