Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 04 Jan 2007 12:33:59 -0600 | From | Eric Sandeen <> | Subject | Re: [UPDATED PATCH] fix memory corruption from misinterpreted bad_inode_ops return values |
| |
Andrew Morton wrote: > On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 11:51:10 -0600 > Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com> wrote:
>> Also - is it ok to alias a function with one signature to a function with >> another signature? > > Ordinarily I'd say no wucking fay, but that's effectively what we've been > doing in there for ages, and it seems to work.
Hmm that gives me a lot of confidence ;-) I'd hate to carry along bad assumptions while we try to make this all kosher... but I'm willing to defer to popular opinion on this one....
> I'd be a bit worried if any of these functions were returning pointers, > because one could certainly conceive of an arch+compiler combo which > returns pointers in a different register from integers (680x0?) but that's > not happening here.
Well, one is...
static long * return_EIO_ptr(void) { return ERR_PTR(-EIO); } ... static struct dentry *bad_inode_lookup(struct inode * dir, struct dentry *dentry, struct nameidata *nd) __attribute__((alias("return_EIO_ptr")));
Maybe it'd be better to lose the alias in this case then? and go back to this:
static struct dentry *bad_inode_lookup(struct inode * dir, struct dentry *dentry, struct nameidata *nd) { return ERR_PTR(-EIO); }
Thanks, -Eric - 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/
| |