Messages in this thread | | | From | Kees Cook <> | Date | Mon, 9 Apr 2018 11:00:56 -0700 | Subject | Re: [bisected] 3c8ba0d61d04ced9f8d9ff93977995a9e4e96e91 oopses on s390 |
| |
On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 10:14 AM, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 10:03 AM, Linus Torvalds > <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote: >> >> Our old "min()" had the internal variables called "min1" and "min2", >> which is crazy too. > > Actually, no, it used the really cumbersome "__UNIQUE_ID" and then > passed that odd as the name 'min1/2', > > Ugh, I find that really nasty to read, but it was obviously done > because we hit this before.
Ooof. Nice find.
> And our __UNIQUE_ID() macro is garbage anyway, since it falls back on > the line number, which doesn't really work for macros anyway. But we > have proper macros for both clang and gcc, so maybe we should ignore > the broken fallback. > > A patch like the attached, perhaps?
Can we update the comment near the top to explain why we need __UNIQUE_ID() since we've now rediscovered why it was originally there?
-Kees
-- Kees Cook Pixel Security
| |