linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2.6.18-rc4-mm3 2/2] fs/xfs: Correcting error-prone boolean-statement

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: <20060901111601.R3186664@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com>
Date:	Fri, 1 Sep 2006 11:16:01 +1000
From:	Nathan Scott <nathans@....com>
To:	Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@...dent.ltu.se>
Cc:	akpm@...l.org, xfs-masters@....sgi.com, xfs@....sgi.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.18-rc4-mm3 2/2] fs/xfs: Correcting error-prone boolean-statement

On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 03:18:31AM +0200, Richard Knutsson wrote:
> Nathan Scott wrote:
> >Are you using XFS on your systems?  What is your strategy for getting this
> >runtime tested going to be?  Or are you delegating that responsibility? :)
> >  
> Sorry, can't say that I do. So pretty please... ;)
> Seriously, I can not find a state when this may fail (if not "if (var == 
> TRUE)" happend to be correct for 'var' != 0 != 1, but that is just a bug 
> waiting to happend).
> But please correct me if I am wrong.

OK, I'll run with it in my own testing for awhile.  I was also curious to
why you didn't remove the other few B_TRUE/B_FALSE occurences?  (and the
typedef)?

cheers.

-- 
Nathan
-
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/