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, 15 Oct 2021 14:36:56 +0200
From:   Miguel Ojeda <>
To:     Rasmus Villemoes <>
Cc:     Nick Desaulniers <>,
        Peter Zijlstra <>,
        Miguel Ojeda <>,
        Nathan Chancellor <>,
        Kees Cook <>,
        linux-kernel <>,,
        Linus Torvalds <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] compiler_types: mark __compiletime_assert failure as __noreturn

On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 10:11 AM Rasmus Villemoes
<> wrote:
> A yakshave that would be worthwhile is to kill off the macro
> compiletime_assert() completely - three is a crowd. It sounds like it
> would be implemented in terms of _Static_assert, but it's actually
> __attribute__(error). We can fold the definition of compiletime_assert

Agreed, two should be enough.

> Why do we even have a no-op version if !__OPTIMIZE__? AFAIK there's no
> CONFIG_O0 option, and such a build wouldn't be interesting at all - it
> can't be expected to boot, and it would likely throw warnings left and
> right.

Yeah, I don't think it would compile as it is anyway.

Perhaps it is there for some kind of tooling? For a static analyzer or
something like sparse (if it didn't have its own define)...

But yeah, every use of it should have a comment explaining why it is
there, like crypto/jitterentropy.c does. There are a couple without


Powered by blists - more mailing lists