[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <871pppfnjy.ffs@tglx>
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2025 23:47:45 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Pranav Tyagi <pranav.tyagi03@...il.com>, mingo@...hat.com,
peterz@...radead.org, dvhart@...radead.org, dave@...olabs.net,
andrealmeid@...lia.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: jann@...jh.net, keescook@...omium.org, skhan@...uxfoundation.org,
linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linux.dev, Pranav Tyagi
<pranav.tyagi03@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] futex: don't leak robust_list pointer on exec race
On Tue, Aug 05 2025 at 21:17, Pranav Tyagi wrote:
> +
> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_COMPAT) && compat)
> + head = p->compat_robust_list;
This still does not compile because the dead code elimination comes
_after_ the compiler decodes this line. I don't even need to fire up a
compiler to predict the error emitted when CONFIG_COMPAT=n:
error: ‘struct task_struct’ has no member named ‘compat_robust_list’
No?
There is a reason why I suggested you to use that helper function.
You are obviously free to ignore me, but then please make sure that the
stuff you submit compiles _AND_ works. Otherwise if you are not sure,
why I told you, ask.
Please take your time and stop rushing out half baken crap, which wastes
everybodys time. I don't care about your time wasted, but I pretty much
care about mine.
To be clear: I don't want to see this in my inbox again before next week
and then it better be correct.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists