linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [v2] arm64: define BUG() instruction without CONFIG

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: <CAK8P3a2d71PL4EaJ_hCAsjg3szG=0CFrLZ8U2AZvch=k3bv2gQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 21 Mar 2017 11:35:16 +0100
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [v2] arm64: define BUG() instruction without CONFIG_BUG

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 8:09 PM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com> wrote:

>>
>> -#define BUG() do {                           \
>> -     _BUG_FLAGS(0);                          \
>> -     unreachable();                          \
>> +#define _BUG_FLAGS(flags) __BUG_FLAGS(flags)
>
> What is this for? I don't see _BUG_FLAGS used anywhere, but I could
> be missing some macro expansion.

I think I accidentally left this after removing the last user from an
intermediate
version of the patch. Do you want me to send an updated version, or could
you just drop this line when applying?

       Arnd