linux-kernel - Re: Conversion to generic boolean

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, 28 Aug 2006 14:19:24 -0700
From:	Nicholas Miell <nmiell@...cast.net>
To:	Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@...dent.ltu.se>
Cc:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	James.Bottomley@...elEye.com, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Conversion to generic boolean

On Mon, 2006-08-28 at 22:55 +0200, Richard Knutsson wrote:
> Nicholas Miell wrote:
> 
> >On Mon, 2006-08-28 at 14:17 +0200, Richard Knutsson wrote: 
> >
> >>Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> >>    
> >>
> >>>>>Just would like to ask if you want patches for:
> >>>>>         
> >>>>>
> >>>>Total NACK to any of this boolean ididocy.  I very much hope you didn't
> >>>>get the impression you actually have a chance to get this merged.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>* (Most importent, may introduce bugs if left alone)
> >>>>>Fixing boolean checking, ex:
> >>>>>if (bool == FALSE)
> >>>>>to
> >>>>>if (!bool)
> >>>>>          
> >>>>>
> >>>>this one of course makes sense, but please do it without introducing
> >>>>any boolean type.  Getting rid of all the TRUE/FALSE defines and converting
> >>>>all scsi drivers to classic C integer as boolean semantics would be
> >>>>very welcome janitorial work.
> >>>>   
> >>>>
> >>>I don't get it. You object to the 'idiocy' 
> >>>(http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/7/27/281), but find the x==FALSE -> !x 
> >>>a good thing?
> >>>     
> >>>
> >>That is error-prone. Not "==FALSE" but what happens if x is (for some 
> >>reason) not 1 and then "if (x==TRUE)".
> >>    
> >
> >If you're using _Bool, that isn't possible. (Except at the boundaries
> >where you have to validate untrusted data -- and the compiler makes that
> >more difficult, because it "knows" that a _Bool can only be 0 or 1 and
> >therefore your check to see if it's not 0 or 1 can "safely" be
> >eliminated.)
> >  
> >
> Yes, true. But there is no _Bool's in the kernel (linus-git), only one 
> in script/.
> 

Sorry, I was under the impression that the purpose of the generic
boolean patch was to switch the kernel over to C's generic boolean.


-- 
Nicholas Miell <nmiell@...cast.net>

-
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/