netdev - Re: [PATCHv4 3/4] sparc64: Avoid irqsave/restore on vio.lock if in

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20141022001612.GB26724@oracle.com>
Date:	Tue, 21 Oct 2014 20:16:12 -0400
From:	Sowmini Varadhan <sowmini.varadhan@...cle.com>
To:	Dave Kleikamp <dave.kleikamp@...cle.com>
Cc:	Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@...il.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	sparclinux <sparclinux@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 3/4] sparc64: Avoid irqsave/restore on vio.lock if
 in_softirq()

On (10/21/14 18:56), Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> > 
> > Is gcc not smart enough to know that this variable isn't used before
> > it's set? (I assume it isn't used elsewhere in this function)
> 
> It probably assumes in_softirq() might evaluate differently in the each
> case.

yes, that's what I suspected too. I suppose it is possible
from the compiler's point of view that something in between 
might change the result of in_softirq() so that we may be 
using an uninit variable in the second call.

anyway, the warning was annoying, and would only numb the
user into ignoring other real issues, so I figured I might
as well silence the warning.

--Sowmini

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html