linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] byteswap: try to avoid __builtin_constant

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: <CA+i0qc4z2aNHQ+WcCJ7uz9pt9WCseQ-B_x7D0baMYduDcsV8Rw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 23 Jun 2016 09:27:30 +0300
From:	Tomas Winkler <tomasw@...il.com>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	"Levy, Amir (Jer)" <amir.jer.levy@...el.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"mm-commits@...r.kernel.org" <mm-commits@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"jpoimboe@...hat.com" <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
	Martin Jambor <mjambor@...e.cz>,
	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
	Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Himanshu Madhani <himanshu.madhani@...gic.com>,
	Dept-Eng QLA2xxx Upstream <qla2xxx-upstream@...gic.com>,
	Jan Hubicka <hubicka@....cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] byteswap: try to avoid __builtin_constant_p gcc bug

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 22, 2016 2:44:21 PM CEST Tomas Winkler wrote:
>> >
>> > There are more than 20 files that have the statement: case cpu_to_...
>> > Sparse complains about: case __builtin_bswap, not about __builtin_constant_p.
>>
>> There is even much more in the header files used in  initializers,
>> which also require constants.  I wonder if __builtin_bswap produces
>> constant expression correctly under gcc?
>
> In gcc-4.8 or later yes. gcc-4.6/4.7 on powerpc was a special case that we
> have worked around now, as the 16-bit byteswap there was not a constant
> expression, unlike the 32-bit and 64-bit ones.

Can you please give any references to that?
Just to make sure we are on the same line , the  bottom line is that
sparse has to be adjusted.

Thanks
Tomas