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]
Date:   Fri, 12 Apr 2019 16:55:38 +0200
From:   Christoph Hellwig <>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <>,
        Linus Torvalds <>,
        Andrew Morton <>,
        linux-arch <>,,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] byteorder: sanity check toolchain vs kernel

On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 04:53:28PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 4:36 PM Christoph Hellwig <> wrote:
> >
> > When removing some dead big endian checks in the RISC-V code Nick
> > suggested that we should have some generic sanity checks.  I don't think
> > we should have thos inside the RISC-V code, but maybe it might make
> > sense to have these in the generic byteorder headers.  Note that these
> > are UAPI headers and some compilers might not actually define
> > __BYTE_ORDER__, so we first check that it actually exists.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Nick Kossifidis <>
> > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <>
> Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <>
> Extra checking like this is good in general, but I'm not sure I see
> exactly what kind of issue one might expect to prevent with this:

I'm personally not worried at all. Just trying to respond to Nicks
review comment and make it reasonable generic if we have to have these
checks at all.  I personally would be ok without them, I just don't
want them hidden somewhere in the RISC-V code (RISC-V is always little
endian at least right now).

Powered by blists - more mailing lists