linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH net] hvsock: fix epollout hang from race condition

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]

Date:   Sat, 15 Jun 2019 17:01:08 +0000
From:   Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>
To:     Sunil Muthuswamy <sunilmut@...rosoft.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:     KY Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.com>,
        Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>,
        "sashal@...nel.org" <sashal@...nel.org>,
        Michael Kelley <mikelley@...rosoft.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net] hvsock: fix epollout hang from race condition

> From: Sunil Muthuswamy <sunilmut@...rosoft.com>
> Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2019 12:23 AM
> To: Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>; David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
> > ...
> > It looks a simple inline assembly code can confuse gcc. I'm not sure if I should
> > report a bug for gcc...
> >
> > I posted a patch to suppress these bogus warnings just now. The Subject is:
> >
> > [PATCH net] hv_sock: Suppress bogus "may be used uninitialized" warnings

David, as I described, these warnings are spurious and can be safely ignored.

Please consider not applying my two-line patch to avoid merge conflict
with Sunil's another patch in net-next.git. 

> Yes, these warnings are not specific to this patch. And, additionally these
> should already addressed in the commit ...
> I was trying to avoid making the same changes here to avoid merge
> conflicts when 'net-next' merges with 'net' next.

Yeah, I agree.

Thanks,
-- Dexuan