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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 12:33:40 +0200 From: Peter 1 Oberparleiter <Peter.Oberparleiter@...ibm.com> To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] consolidate all within() implementations Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote on 21.05.2008 12:04:26: > > +static inline int addr_within_len(const void *addr, const void *start, > > + size_t len) > > +{ > > + return ((unsigned long) addr >= (unsigned long) start) && > > + ((unsigned long) addr < ((unsigned long) start + len)); > > +} > > might be my braindamage, but I'd have written it like: > > static inline int > addr_within_len(const void *addr, const void *start, size_t len) > { > return (unsigned long)addr - (unsigned long)start < len; > } Definitely another way to put it. In my opinion the intention of the implementation is more easily understood though when spelling it out as (a>=b) && (a<c). > static inline int > addr_within(const void *add, const void *start, const void *end) > { > return addr_within_len(addr, start, > (unsigned long)end - (unsigned long)start); > } For empty ranges (start > end), this produces different (less expected) results than the previous version. Regards, Peter -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists