On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 09:47:01AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> NOBODY will guarantee you that they follow all standards to the letter.
> Some use compiler extensions knowingly, but pretty much _everybody_ ends
> up depending on subtle issues without even realizing it. It's almost
> impossible to write a real program that has no bugs, and if they don't
> show up in testing (because the compiler didn't generate buggy assembly
> code from source code that had the _potential_ for bugs), they often won't
> get fixed.
>
> The kernel does things like compare pointers across objects, and the
> kernel EXPECTS it to work. I seriously doubt that the kernel is even
> unusual in this. The common way to avoid AB-BA deadlocks in any threaded
> code (whether kernel or user space) is to just take two locks in a
> specific order, and the common way to do that for locks of the same type
> is simply to compare the addresses).
>
> The fact that this is "undefined" behaviour matters not a _whit_. Not for
> the kernel, and I bet not for a lot of other applications either.
True, but we'd better understand what assumptions we are making. I have
seen patches seriously attempting to _subtract_ unrelated pointers. And
that simply doesn't work for obvious reasons...
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
