linux-kernel - Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 09/14] xen: events: Remove redundant check on unsigned variable

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Mon, 19 Nov 2012 16:30:16 +0530
From:	Tushar Behera <tushar.behera@...aro.org>
To:	Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>
CC:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
	"patches@...aro.org" <patches@...aro.org>,
	"virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org" 
	<virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 09/14] xen: events: Remove redundant check
 on unsigned variable

On 11/19/2012 04:01 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-11-19 at 03:52 +0000, Tushar Behera wrote:
>> On 11/16/2012 10:23 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>>> To be honest I'd nack this kind of patch. The test is only redundant in the most trivial sense that the compiler can easily optimise away. The point of the test is to make sure that the range is OK even if the type subsequently becomes signed (to hold a -ve error, for example).
>>>
>>> J
>>>
>>
>> The check is on the function argument which is unsigned, so checking '<
>> 0' doesn't make sense. We should force signed check only if the argument
>> is of signed type. In any case, even if irq has been assigned some error
>> value, that would be caught by the check irq >= nr_irqs.
> 
> Jeremy is (I think) arguing that this check is not redundant because
> someone might change the type of the argument to be signed and until
> then the compiler can trivially optimise the check away, so what's the
> harm in it?
> 
> I'm somewhat inclined to agree with him.
> 
> Ian.
> 
Ok, I don't have much argument against this.

-- 
Tushar Behera
--
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/