On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 10:14 AM, Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 10:03 AM, Linus Torvalds > <torva...@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