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]
Date:	Mon, 03 Nov 2008 08:33:34 +0100
From:	Olaf Weber <>
To:	Theodore Tso <>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <>,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH,RFC] ext3: Add support for non-native signed/unsigned htree hash algorithms

Theodore Tso writes:
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 05:22:21PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:

>> > +		if (((int) c) == -1) {
>> arm says
>> fs/ext3/super.c: In function `ext3_fill_super':
>> fs/ext3/super.c:1750: warning: comparison is always false due to limited range of data type
>> Also, is there any way in which this new code can be, umm, cleaned up?

> Hmm..... is it considered safe to depend on the userspace limits.h
> header file?  I guess if we trust that header file to be correct we
> could check the value of CHAR_MIN and/or CHAR_MAX as defined by
> limits.h.

> Alternatively we could do an #ifdef __CHAR_UNSIGNED__, which is
> defined by gcc.  The manual for gcc tells us not to depend on it, but
> to depend on limits.h instead.

> Any thoughts, or comments?  Does anyone know if the Intel compiler
> will DTRT with either of these approaches?

Why not write the test like this?

	if ((char)-1 > 0) {
		/* char is unsigned */
	} else {
		/* char is signed */

Olaf Weber
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists