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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 19 Jan 2021 16:00:26 -0800
From:   Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Vinayak Menon <vinmenon@...eaurora.org>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@...roid.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/8] mm: Separate fault info out of 'struct vm_fault'

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 1:33 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 1:23 AM Will Deacon <will@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hmm. The feedback on the clang bug suggests that GCC is the one in the
> > wrong here (although the argument is based on C11 and I haven't trawled
> > through the standards to see how this has evolved):
>
> Oh well.
>
> That writing is absolutely the _worst_ kind of weaselwording standards
> language reading, trying to make excuses for bad behavior by basically
> depending on "this language is unclear", and trying to say that the
> buggy behavior is required by C11.
>
> What a disappointment.

I don't really understand British humor either, but I assume that's
how the language lawyers throw shade on one anothers' standards.
Richard is both the WG21 spec editor (C++) and British, IIRC.
Apparently, there's a long conversion (behind closed doors; it's the
ISO way) going on in regards to the thread Richard has kicked off with
them (WG14; C).  Moreso on what should happen with the _Atomic
qualifier, assignments, and memcpy.  So it is still an important thing
to nail down the language spec.

Note there were also a lot of discussions lately on "where should the
volatile qualifier be allowed, or not."
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2018/p1152r0.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJW_DLaVXIY
(2018? ok, maybe not lately.  Lately for C)

I view this similarly as "where should the const qualifier be allowed, or not."
-- 
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers

Powered by blists - more mailing lists