Re: [UPDATED PATCH] fix memory corruption from misinterpretedbad_inode_ops return values

[Arjan van de Ven]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/