linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the block tree

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

Date:   Thu, 29 Jun 2017 07:33:22 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:     Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        PowerPC <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the block tree

Hi Jens,

On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 09:11:32 -0600 Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:
>
> On 06/28/2017 08:01 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > But put_user() is fine? Just checking here, since the change adds
> > both a u64 put and get user.  

Yes, put_user is fine (it does 2 4 byte moves.  The asm is there to do
the 8 byte get_user, but the surrounding C code uses an unsigned long
for the destination in all cases (some other arches do the same).  I
don't remember why it is like that.

> I just changed all 4, at least that provides some symmetry in how
> we copy things in and out for that set of fcntls.

OK, thanks.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell