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:	Tue, 29 Aug 2006 14:17:12 +0200 (MEST)
From:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
cc:	Nicholas Miell <nmiell@...cast.net>,
	Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@...dent.ltu.se>,
	James.Bottomley@...elEye.com, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Conversion to generic boolean

>> > 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.)
>
>gcc lets you happily assign any integer value to bool/_Bool, so unless

But, it coerces the rvalue into 0 or 1, which may be a gain.

>you write sparse support for actually checking things there's not the
>slightest advantage in value range checking.


Jan Engelhardt
-- 
-
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/