linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH -mm] timer: parenthesis fix in tbase_get

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:	Wed, 9 May 2007 08:59:27 -0700
From:	"Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>
To:	"Jarek Poplawski" <jarkao2@...pl>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Oleg Nesterov" <oleg@...sign.ru>
Subject: RE: [PATCH -mm] timer: parenthesis fix in tbase_get_deferrable() etc.


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jarek Poplawski [mailto:jarkao2@...pl] 
>Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 10:32 PM
>To: Andrew Morton
>Cc: Pallipadi, Venkatesh; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; Oleg Nesterov
>Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] timer: parenthesis fix in 
>tbase_get_deferrable() etc.
>
>On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 04:33:58PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Tue, 8 May 2007 12:33:48 +0200
>> Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl> wrote:
>> 
>> > 
>> > Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>
>> > 
>> > ---
>> > 
>> > diff -Nurp 2.6.21-mm1-/kernel/timer.c 2.6.21-mm1/kernel/timer.c
>> > --- 2.6.21-mm1-/kernel/timer.c	2007-05-08 
>11:54:48.000000000 +0200
>> > +++ 2.6.21-mm1/kernel/timer.c	2007-05-08 
>12:05:11.000000000 +0200
>> > @@ -92,24 +92,24 @@ static DEFINE_PER_CPU(tvec_base_t *, tve
>> >  /* Functions below help us manage 'deferrable' flag */
>> >  static inline unsigned int tbase_get_deferrable(tvec_base_t *base)
>> >  {
>> > -	return ((unsigned int)(unsigned long)base & 
>TBASE_DEFERRABLE_FLAG);
>> > +	return (unsigned int)((unsigned long)base & 
>TBASE_DEFERRABLE_FLAG);
>> >  }
>...
>> The change makes sense, but does it actually "fix" anything?
>> 
>
>Yes - this first place fixes logical error, so it's a sin
>- even if not punishable in practice. (It's also unnecessary
>test for long to int conversion.)
>

I am sorry, I don't understand. What is the logical error in the first
one?

Actually, your change makes it different from what was originally
indended.
Original intention was to type convert base to a 32 bit value and
bitwise& with FLAG. Even though compiler may optimize both the above to
same code, I don't see what is the error.

Thanks,
Venki 
-
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/