From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756015Ab3J1KzY (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Oct 2013 06:55:24 -0400 Received: from mail-ee0-f52.google.com ([74.125.83.52]:44567 "EHLO mail-ee0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754442Ab3J1KzW (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Oct 2013 06:55:22 -0400 Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 11:55:19 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Jan Beulich Cc: Peter Zijlstra , mingo@elte.hu, tglx@linutronix.de, Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , arjan@linux.intel.com, linux@roeck-us.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: unify copy_from_user() size checking Message-ID: <20131028105519.GA7798@gmail.com> References: <5265056D02000078000FC4F3@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <20131026103109.GC14949@gmail.com> <526E1EFA02000078000FD1E7@nat28.tlf.novell.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <526E1EFA02000078000FD1E7@nat28.tlf.novell.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * 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? > > Afaict yes, but I certainly didn't test with all possible gcc > versions. So minimally everyone involved in getting that change in > would be good to be in agreement. Mind submitting a patch? I can keep it pending until v3.14, that should give time for compiler dependencies to be caught. Even if it breaks anything it shouldn't be too hard to revert again ;-) Thanks, Ingo