| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 01:29:21 +0100 From: Anton Altaparmakov <aia21@....ac.uk> To: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net> Cc: Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] ptrdiff_t is not uintptr_t, damnit Hi, On 20 Aug 2007, at 01:19, David Brownell wrote: > On Sunday 19 August 2007, Al Viro wrote: >> is wrong; for one thing, it's a bad C (it's what uintptr_t is for; >> in general >> we are not even promised that ptrdiff_t is large enough to hold a >> pointer, > > ISTR we don't *have* a uintptr_t on all architectures, or that would > be the appropriate thing to use in these 32/64 bit ABI scenarios. > > >> Use unsigned long or uintptr_t instead. > > I suspect you mean "unsigned long long"... No he doesn't. "unsigned long" is guaranteed to be large enough to hold a pointer (at least on Linux anyway). On a 32-bit arch "unsigned long" is 32-bit and pointers are 32-bit. On a 64-bit archi "unsigned long" is 64-bit and pointers are 64-bit. Best regards, Anton -- Anton Altaparmakov <aia21 at cam.ac.uk> (replace at with @) Unix Support, Computing Service, University of Cambridge, CB2 3QH, UK Linux NTFS maintainer, http://www.linux-ntfs.org/ - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists