linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] spufs: fix another off-by-one bug in mbox

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 24 Oct 2006 21:07:43 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	"Pekka Enberg" <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Cc:	"Paul Mackerras" <paulus@...ba.org>, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
	cbe-oss-dev@...abs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] spufs: fix another off-by-one bug in mbox_read

On Tuesday 24 October 2006 20:42, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On 10/24/06, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> >         spu_acquire(ctx);
> > -       for (count = 0; count <= len; count += 4, udata++) {
> > +       for (count = 0; (count + 4) <= len; count += 4, udata++) {
>
> Wouldn't this be more obvious as
>
>   for (count = 0, count < (len / 4); count++, udata++) {
>
> And then do count * 4 if you need the actual index somewhere. Hmm?

Count is the return value from a write() file operation. I find it
more readable to update that every time I do one put_user(), to
the exact value, than calculating the return code later.

	Arnd <>< 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/