Custom Search

RE: [regression] Re: [PATCH 2/3] futex: Sanitize cmpxchg_futex_value_locked API

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]



> It doesn't look like the return value (r8) is actually being set beyond
> initialized to 0. If there is some ia64 instruction that modifies it, GCC
> doesn't know about it from the inline assembly (r8 doesn't appear in the
> inputs/outputs list). From looking at the x86 version (agh, inline asm is
> hard to parse), it does modify the return value based on whether the
> comparison was a success or not, and the return value is certainly used by
> the callers.

The commit comment for the change makes it sound like the return value
is an error code (-ENOSYS if the function isn't implemented/configured;
-EFAULT if the user address is bogus) - or zero if nothing bad happened.

Not "the comparison was a success or not".

What's the real answer? The ia64 code is returning 0 regardless of whether the
compare/exchange found the old value or not.  Is this a bad assumption?

-Tony
��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{��&�����ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f



[Linux Kernel]     [Sparc Linux]     [DCCP]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux]     [Photo]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux x86_64]     [Linux Hams]

  Powered by Linux