linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 5/5] libext2fs: Implement fast find_first

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]

Message-ID: <20120326152607.GB15027@thunk.org>
Date:	Mon, 26 Mar 2012 11:26:07 -0400
From:	Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	Sami Liedes <sami.liedes@....fi>
Cc:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] libext2fs: Implement fast find_first_zero() for
 bitarray bitmaps.

On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 04:22:58PM +0300, Sami Liedes wrote:
> Hmm, no, I don't think so? count==0 here iff we have tested as many
> bits as the caller requested. So this code will bail out if the number
> of bits to test is not large enough to even hit a byte boundary, or if
> the last bit to test and the byte boundary coincide. Perhaps count
> should be renamed to something like bits_left_to_test if it's
> confusing now?

Ah, you're right, my bad.  I managed to confuse myself with !count.
In cases where we're not dealing with a boolean value, it's actually
better to write (count == 0), for this reason.

> I agree that a regression test is needed. I'll look into writing that.

If you could work on improving tst_bitmaps, that would be great.  Thanks!!

       	     	     	       		    - Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html