linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] lib/lcm.c: lcm(n,0)=lcm(0,n) is 0, not n

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:	Mon, 30 Mar 2015 21:38:27 +0200
From:	Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
To:	Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
	device-mapper development <dm-devel@...hat.com>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] lib/lcm.c: lcm(n,0)=lcm(0,n) is 0, not n

On Sun, Mar 29 2015, Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Rasmus Villemoes
> <linux@...musvillemoes.dk> wrote:
>> Return the mathematically correct answer when an argument is 0.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
>
> This change is the source of 3.19 regression for stacking device
> limits, via commit 69c953c ("lib/lcm.c: lcm(n,0)=lcm(0,n) is 0, not
> n").
>
>
> Rasmus, mathematical purity of lcm() aside, it'd have been nice if you
> looked at the lcm() callers to determine whether you'd be breaking
> them.

I'm sorry about this. I thought I did check the callers, but evidently
not well enough.

Rasmus
--
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/