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  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:   Tue, 5 May 2020 15:00:37 -0400 (EDT)
From:   Mathieu Desnoyers <>
To:     Linus Torvalds <>
Cc:     ndesaulniers <>,
        Peter Zijlstra <>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <>,
        x86 <>,
        linux-kernel <>,
        rostedt <>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <>,
        bristot <>, jbaron <>,
        Thomas Gleixner <>,
        Ingo Molnar <>, Nadav Amit <>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <>,
        Andy Lutomirski <>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <>,
        Paolo Bonzini <>,
        "H.J. Lu" <>,
        clang-built-linux <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 14/18] static_call: Add static_cond_call()

----- On May 5, 2020, at 2:48 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Your initial reaction that "you can't compile away the read and the
> test of NULL" was correct, I think.

I suspect this pattern of "if (func != NULL) func(...)" could be semantically
changed to just invoking an empty function which effectively does nothing.
This would remove the need to do a pointer check in the first place. But maybe
I'm missing something subtle about why it has not been done in this context.



Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists