linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cgroup.c: Some 'hlist

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

Date:	Tue, 12 Aug 2008 18:12:37 +0600
From:	"Rakib Mullick" <rakib.mullick@...il.com>
To:	"Paul Jackson" <pj@....com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cgroup.c: Some 'hlist_head' function fixes.

On 8/12/08, Paul Jackson <pj@....com> wrote:
> > Is it [text size] the only criteria to judge this patch ?
>
>  No - not the only criteria, as the patch combines a couple of
>  changes.
>
>  > What about the use of "unsigned long", instead of int.
>
>  I had missed that change, even though you had explicitly
>
> described it in your patch comment, when you wrote:
>
>   2. As hash_long returns with unsigned long we need a unsigned long
>
>
> How about just casting the hash_long() result to int:
>
>   index = (int)hash_long(tmp, CSS_SET_HASH_BITS);
 Yes, it looks good.
>
>  Since we are using this 'index' to index an array,
>  it had better fit in an 'int', which indeed it does
>  as CSS_SET_HASH_BITS is 7, which constrains the output
>  of hash_long to [0 .. 2^7-1], that is between 0 and 127.
>
>  However ... looking around the kernel, I see that most other
>  uses of hash_long(), except in cases where the second argument
>  (bit size) might actually exceed 32 bits, either directly
>  index some array with the result, or else assign the result
>  to a temporary 'int'.
>
>  And the compiler does not complain that we're assigning a
>  long to an int.
>
>  So ... what's the problem?
Yes, maybe your right. Ok, I'll go through the code again. If it's
good then I'm happy.
>
>  I see nothing in this patch of value.
>
>  Am I missing something?
>
>  -----
>
>  I just noticed that you had dropped the other recipients
>  from this email thread, a couple of replies ago.  My
>  preference would have been to have this discussion in
>  public.  I prefer not to drop people from CC lists on
>  email threads.
Yes, I've noticed it too. I just forgot to do that. Actually, when I
reply to thread, I just think about that one. This could be a reason
for missing.
Thanks.
>

>
>  --
>
>                   I won't rest till it's the best ...
>                   Programmer, Linux Scalability
>                   Paul Jackson <pj@....com> 1.940.382.4214
>
--
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/