linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] proc: Make the generation of the self symlink table driven.

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:	Fri, 08 Sep 2006 07:27:22 -0600
From:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] proc: Make the generation of the self symlink table driven.

Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de> writes:

>>>>> +	for (; nr < (ARRAY_SIZE(proc_base_stuff) - 1); filp->f_pos++, nr++) {
>>>>
>>> Also works without the () around ARRAY_SIZE(..)-1
>>
>>Sure.  But I don't really trust C precedence (because it is wrong)
>
> Wrong? In mathematics, "a < (b - 1)" also is equivalent to "a < b - 1".

In mathematics < is not an operation that yields a result in
the domain of integers.  So  "(a < b) - 1" is impossible.

Regardless this isn't a case where the C precedence is wrong.
"a < b | 1" is an example of C getting the precedence wrong.

Having to remember where C is wrong and in what circumstances is
harder than just putting in parenthesis.

Eric
-
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/