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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20180414101112.GX4064@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2018 12:11:12 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> To: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com> Cc: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>, mingo@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, kernel-team@...com, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/cpufeature: guard asm_volatile_goto usage with CC_HAVE_ASM_GOTO On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 01:42:14PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On 4/13/18 11:19 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 02:28:04PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > > Instead of > > > #ifdef CC_HAVE_ASM_GOTO > > > we can replace it with > > > #ifndef __BPF__ > > > or some other name, > > > > I would prefer the BPF specific hack; otherwise we might be encouraging > > people to build the kernel proper without asm-goto. > > > > I don't understand this concern. The thing is; this will be a (temporary) BPF specific hack. Hiding it behind something that looks 'normal' (CC_HAVE_ASM_GOTO) is just not right.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists