lkml.org 
[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
    From
    Date
    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) linux.intel.com
    Test the interaction between Linux and your BIOS via http://www.linuxfirmwarekit.org

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2007-01-05 16:45    [W:0.022 / U:152.064 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site