linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv3 1/5] efi/runtime-wrappers: detect FW irq flag corruption

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

Date:	Mon, 25 Apr 2016 15:24:35 +0100
From:	Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>
To:	Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
Cc:	Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	"linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@...aro.org>,
	"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 1/5] efi/runtime-wrappers: detect FW irq flag corruption

On Mon, 25 Apr, at 04:18:41PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 25 April 2016 at 16:15, Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 Apr, at 03:12:01PM, Robin Murphy wrote:
> >> >+static void efi_call_virt_check_flags(unsigned long flags, const char *call)
> >> >+{
> >> >+    unsigned long cur_flags;
> >> >+    bool mismatch;
> >> >+
> >> >+    local_save_flags(cur_flags);
> >> >+
> >> >+    mismatch = !!((cur_flags ^ flags) & ARCH_EFI_IRQ_FLAGS_MASK);
> >>
> >> nit: the assignment itself is already a conversion to bool, so the
> >> excitement is redundant here.
> >
> > This was intentional. I asked Mark to make this change so that it's
> > explicit for the developer that we're performing the type conversion.
> 
> But replacing an implicit boolean cast with an explicit one makes
> little sense, no? Don't we simply want '!= 0' here if you need a
> boolean expression?

Aha but '!!' is fewer characters to type!!

I'm not that bothered as long as we don't stuff an int into a bool
without giving the programmer some idea we're doing that. It's not
about the compiler getting it wrong, more about a developer
introducing a bug when they change the code in the future. 

Unless anyone objects, I'll fix this up to use '!= 0' when I apply it.