From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754154Ab3J2KIX (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Oct 2013 06:08:23 -0400 Received: from nat28.tlf.novell.com ([130.57.49.28]:38448 "EHLO nat28.tlf.novell.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753735Ab3J2KIV convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Oct 2013 06:08:21 -0400 Message-Id: <526F971F02000078000FD841@nat28.tlf.novell.com> X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 12.0.2 Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:08:15 +0000 From: "Jan Beulich" To: "Ingo Molnar" Cc: "Peter Zijlstra" , , , "Andrew Morton" , "Linus Torvalds" , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: unify copy_from_user() size checking References: <5265056D02000078000FC4F3@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <20131026103109.GC14949@gmail.com> <526F914A02000078000FD806@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <20131029095408.GB25306@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20131029095408.GB25306@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >>> On 29.10.13 at 10:54, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Jan Beulich wrote: > >> >>> On 26.10.13 at 12:31, Ingo Molnar wrote: >> > * Jan Beulich wrote: >> >> I'd like to point out though that with __compiletime_object_size() >> >> being restricted to gcc before 4.6, the whole construct is going to >> >> become more and more pointless going forward. I would question >> >> however that commit 2fb0815c9ee6b9ac50e15dd8360ec76d9fa46a2 ("gcc4: >> >> disable __compiletime_object_size for GCC 4.6+") was really necessary, >> >> and instead this should have been dealt with as is done here from the >> >> beginning. >> > >> > Can we now revert 2fb0815c9ee6? >> >> Actually I'm afraid parisc would first need to follow the changes >> done on x86 here, or else they'd run into (compile time) issues >> (s390 and tile only emit warnings, i.e. would at worst suffer >> cosmetically unless subtrees putting -Werror in place are >> affected). > > Given how trivial __compiletime_object_size() is, we could replicate > a (differently named) copy of that in x86 uaccess.h? I would never have dared to suggest something like that... But if you're fine with that, I can certainly do so. I'd then even wonder whether we shouldn't re-use the same name, #undef-ing the one we got from compiler*.h - after all the goal would be for compiler-gcc4.h to change in exactly that way. > This is something that would be pretty platform dependent anyway. Why do you think so? That's entirely a compiler construct. Jan