linux-kernel - Re: Stray nulls when reading from AF

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: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709071350040.25942@fbirervta.pbzchgretzou.qr>
Date:	Fri, 7 Sep 2007 13:52:51 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...putergmbh.de>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
cc:	anders.blomdell@...trol.lth.se, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Stray nulls when reading from AF_UNIX sockets


On Sep 6 2007 12:23, David Miller wrote:
>>     return copied ? : err;
>>   }
>> 
>> Shouldn't this read:
>> 
>>     return copied ? copied : err;
>> 
>> Or am I missing something?
>
>These two statements are equivalent, the first version is
>a shorthand allowed by gcc.

Not only that. With x?x:z, x is evaluated twice,
while with x?:z, x is only evaluated once. That's for stuff when you 
want to, say [dumb example follows],

size_t my_read(..) {
    return read(..) ? : -1
}

and the only other way would be to use a temporary,

size_t my_read(..) {
	size_t x = read(..);
	return x ? x : -1;
}

gcc should be smart enough to also do optimization in the second case..


	Jan
-- 
-
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/