[lkml]   [2007]   [Jan]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [UPDATED PATCH] fix memory corruption from misinterpreted bad_inode_ops return values
On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 23:52 +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 03:21:06PM -0800, Mitchell Blank Jr wrote:
> > Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > Well, that probably would work, but it's also true that returning a 64-bit
> > > value on a 32-bit platform really _does_ depend on more than the size.
> > Yeah, obviously this is restricted to the signed-integer case. My point
> > was just that you could have the compiler figure out which variant to pick
> > for loff_t automatically.
> >
> > > "let's not play tricks with function types at all".
> >
> > I think I agree. The real (but harder) fix for the wasted space issue
> > would be to get the toolchain to automatically combine functions that
> > end up compiling into identical assembly.
> Can't do.

you could if it's static and never has it's address taken (but that's
not the case here)

> You _can_ compile g into jump to f, but that's it. And that, AFAICS,
> is what gcc does.

I thought we actually disabled that in the kernel (it makes oopses
harder to read)....

if you want to mail me at work (you don't), use arjan (at)
Test the interaction between Linux and your BIOS via

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-01-05 16:45    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean