linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] consolidate all within() implementations

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: <1211230216.5915.90.camel@brick>
Date:	Mon, 19 May 2008 13:50:16 -0700
From:	Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com>
To:	Peter Oberparleiter <peter.oberparleiter@...ibm.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Oberparleiter <oberparleiter@...glemail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] consolidate all within() implementations

On Mon, 2008-05-19 at 10:45 +0200, Peter Oberparleiter wrote:
> From: Peter Oberparleiter <peter.oberparleiter@...ibm.com>
> 
> This patch consolidates a number of different implementations of the
> within() function which checks whether an address is within a specified
> address range. Apart from parameter typing, existing implementations can
> be classified in two categories which differ in the way the range is
> specified:
> 
>   1) by start and end address
>   2) by start and size
> 
> These categories are covered by the within() macro (case 1) and the
> within_len() macro (case 2). Both macros can be used with any pointer
> or pointer-equivalent type as parameter.

Would it be that hard to just make them static inlines taking unsigned
longs?

> 
> Signed-off-by: Peter Oberparleiter <peter.oberparleiter@...ibm.com>
> ---
>  
>  /**
> + * within - check whether address is within a start-and-end address range
> + * @val: address

@addr perhaps

> + * @start: start address (included in range)
> + * @end: end address (excluded from range)
> + */
> +#define within(val, start, end) ({			\

How about:
static inline int addr_within(unsigned long addr, unsigned long start,
			      unsigned long end)

> +	unsigned long __val = (unsigned long) (val);	\
> +	unsigned long __start = (unsigned long) (start);	\
> +	unsigned long __end = (unsigned long) (end);	\
> +	(__val >= __start) && (__val < __end); })
> +
> +/**
> + * within_len - check whether address is within a start-and-length address range
> + * @val: address

@addr
> + * @start: start of range
> + * @len: number of bytes in range
> + */
> +#define within_len(val, start, len) ({				\
static inline int addr_within_len(unsigned long addr, unsigned long start,
				  unsigned long len)

Just a thought.

Harvey

--
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/