linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -mm] Introduce U16_MAX and U32

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.999.0708010042070.28746@enigma.security.iitk.ac.in>
Date:	Wed, 1 Aug 2007 00:54:03 +0530 (IST)
From:	Satyam Sharma <satyam@...radead.org>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] Introduce U16_MAX and U32_MAX

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:

> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 21:56:12 +0530 (IST)
> Satyam Sharma <satyam@...radead.org> wrote:
> 
> > --- a/include/linux/kernel.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/kernel.h
> > @@ -30,6 +30,9 @@ extern const char linux_proc_banner[];
> >  #define LLONG_MIN	(-LLONG_MAX - 1)
> >  #define ULLONG_MAX	(~0ULL)
> >  
> > +#define U16_MAX		((u16) ~0U)
> > +#define U32_MAX		((u32) ~0U)
> > +
> 
> hm, I'd have thought that there's a risk of gcc warnings here, forcing
> 0xffffffff into a u16, but apparently not.
> 
> Still, I think it'd be tidier here to tell the truth and use plain
> old 0xffff and 0xffffffff?

Hmm, that does make sense, actually -- in fact that's the only _really_
correct way to define u32_max / u16_max, I'd say. I probably got confused
seeing those bad examples in reiserfs and tcp_illinois ;-)

Thanks.
-
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/