linux-kernel - Re: [bisected] 3c8ba0d61d04ced9f8d9ff93977995a9e4e96e91 oopses on s390

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: <CAGXu5jLSbX-qYx2xWYrsPb-tUFcEhYG86MkhtJ3zMirBHtmurg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 9 Apr 2018 11:00:56 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Sebastian Ott <sebott@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Sebastian Ott <sebott@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
        Martin Uecker <Martin.Uecker@....uni-goettingen.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [bisected] 3c8ba0d61d04ced9f8d9ff93977995a9e4e96e91 oopses on s390

On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 10:14 AM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 10:03 AM, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> Our old "min()" had the internal variables called "min1" and "min2",
>> which is crazy too.
>
> Actually, no, it used the really cumbersome "__UNIQUE_ID" and then
> passed that odd as the name 'min1/2',
>
> Ugh, I find that really nasty to read, but it was obviously done
> because we hit this before.

Ooof. Nice find.

> And our __UNIQUE_ID() macro is garbage anyway, since it falls back on
> the line number, which doesn't really work for macros anyway. But we
> have proper macros for both clang and gcc, so maybe we should ignore
> the broken fallback.
>
> A patch like the attached, perhaps?

Can we update the comment near the top to explain why we need
__UNIQUE_ID() since we've now rediscovered why it was originally
there?

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security