[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fe7ce2ae1011b240e3a6ee8b0425ff3e2c675b6d.camel@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2022 21:53:13 +0000
From: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
To: "keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"viro@...iv.linux.org.uk" <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
"Wysocki, Rafael J" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
"ebiederm@...ssion.com" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
"Chatre, Reinette" <reinette.chatre@...el.com>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
"Brown, Len" <len.brown@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86: Separate out x86_regset for 32 and 64 bit
On Tue, 2022-03-15 at 13:41 -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> Have you verified there's no binary difference in machine code
> output?
There actually was a different in the binaries. I investigated a bit,
and it seemed at least part of it was due to the line numbers changing
the WARN_ON()s. But otherwise, I assumed some compiler optimization
must have been bumped.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists