linux-kernel - Re: kernel/timer.c: next_timer_interrupt() strange/buggy(?) code (2.6.18-rc1-mm2)

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, 17 Jul 2006 15:57:25 -0400
From:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To:	Andreas Mohr <andi@...x01.fht-esslingen.de>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, keir@...source.com,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>, zach@...are.com,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: kernel/timer.c: next_timer_interrupt() strange/buggy(?) code (2.6.18-rc1-mm2)

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 20:53:30 +0200, Andreas Mohr said:
> Hi all,
> 

>         for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) {
>                 j = INDEX(i);
>                 do {

>                         if (j < (INDEX(i)) && i < 3)
>                                 list = varray[i + 1]->vec + (INDEX(i + 1));
>                         goto found;
>                 } while (j != (INDEX(i)));
>         }
> found:

> Excuse me, but why do we have a while loop here if the last instruction in
> the while loop is a straight "goto found"?

Consider if we take the 'goto found' when i==1.  We leave not only the do/while
but also the for loop.  A 'continue' instead would leave the do/while and then
drive the i==2 and subsequent 'for' iterations....

(Unless my C mastery has severely faded of late?)

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped