Re: [PATCH] x86: override __compiletime_object_size()

[Jan Beulich]

>>> On 27.11.13 at 15:03, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> * Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> As discussed in the context of commits 3df7b41a ("x86: Unify
>> copy_from_user() size checking") and 7a3d9b0f ("x86: Unify
>> copy_to_user() and add size checking to it"), we want to leverage
>> __builtin_object_size() also on newer gcc versions, but with other
>> architectures still using another model of copy_*_user() verification
>> we can't replace the global definition. Do it in the (only) header
>> needing the construct for now.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h |    6 ++++++
>>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>> 
>> --- 3.13-rc1/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h
>> +++ 3.13-rc1-x86-compiletime-object-size/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h
>> @@ -584,6 +584,12 @@ __copy_from_user_overflow(int size, unsi
>>  
>>  #endif
>>  
>> +/* linux/compiler-gcc4.h restricts this to gcc < 4.6, which doesn't suit us. */
>> +#if defined(__GNUC__) && GCC_VERSION >= 40100
>> +# undef __compiletime_object_size
>> +# define __compiletime_object_size(obj) __builtin_object_size(obj, 0)
>> +#endif
>> +
> 
> Would be nice to have a more verbose changelog that explains what 
> benefits this brings us.

That makes no sense to me - the benefits of this construct should
have been explained with its introduction; the change here just
makes it being used under wider range of compilers (and the code
comment already says exactly that).

Jan

--
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/