linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 6/8] x86_64/bug: Implement __WARN

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHk-=whOEyTJb6MAcy2ojN98RrEzU5TW031sGpHMhMMFAg5bnw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2025 16:10:16 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kees@...nel.org, 
	acarmina@...hat.com, jpoimboe@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com
Subject: Re: [RFC 6/8] x86_64/bug: Implement __WARN_printf()

On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 at 14:57, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> So if I stuff the asm macro in a global asm() block then GCC ends up
> looking like so:

Better, but as then the clang thing looks like a horrendous disaster.

How about we simply make this all *code* instead of playing games with
register numbers?

Why not just push the arguments by hand on the stack, and make that be
the interface? A 'push %reg' is like a byte or two. And you'd do it in
the cold section, so nobody cares.

And the asm would look somewhat sane, instead of being crazy noise due
to crazy macros.

Or so I imagine, because I didn't actually try it.

           Linus