linux-kernel - Re: somebody dropped a (warning) bomb

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: <874ppmjqko.fsf@javad.com>
Date:	Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:21:27 +0300
From:	Sergei Organov <osv@...ad.com>
To:	7eggert@....de
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"J.A. MagallÃÃÃÂ³n" 
	<jamagallon@....com>, Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>,
	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: somebody dropped a (warning) bomb

Bodo Eggert <7eggert@....de> writes:
> Sergei Organov <osv@...ad.com> wrote:
>> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> writes:
[...]
> Using signed chars for strings is wrong in most countries on earth. It was
> wrong when the first IBM PC came out in 1981, and creating a compiler in
> 1987 defaulting to signed char is a sure sign of originating from an
> isolated country and knowing nothing about this planet.

Maybe I'm wrong, but wasn't it the case that C had no "signed char" type
that time, so "char" had to be abused for the "tiny signed integer"?

> Using signed chars in comparisons is especially wrong, and casting
> each char to unsigned before comparing them is likely to be
> forgotten.

If we start talking about the C language, my opinion is that it's C
problem that it allows numeric comparison of "char" variables at
all. If one actually needs to compare alphabetic characters numerically,
he should first cast to required integer type.

> Unsigned character strings are useless because there is no such thing
> as char(-23), and if these strings weren't casted to signed inside all
> IO functions, they wouldn't work correctly.

Didn't you swap "signed" and "unsigned" by mistake in this phrase? Or
are you indeed think that using "unsigned char*" for strings is useless?

> Only because many programmers don't compare chars, most programs will
> work outside the USA.

Comparison of characters being numeric is not a very good property of
the C language.

> I repeat: Thanks to using signed chars, the programs only
> work /by/ /accident/! Promoting the use of signed char strings is promoting
> bugs and endangering the stability of all our systems. You should stop this
> bullshit now, instead of increasing the pile.

Where did you see I promoted using of "singed char strings"?! If you
don't like the fact that in C language characters are "char", strings
are "char*", and the sign of char is implementation-defined, please
argue with the C committee, not with me.

Or use -funsigned-char to get dialect of C that fits your requirements
better.

-- Sergei.
-
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/