linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] ext3, ext4: do_split() fix loop, with obvious unsigned wrap

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: <493696EA.5060900@tmr.com>
Date:	Wed, 03 Dec 2008 09:25:46 -0500
From:	Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>
To:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>,
	roel kluin <roel.kluin@...il.com>, adilger@....com,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ext3, ext4: do_split() fix loop, with obvious	unsigned
 wrap

Bill Davidsen wrote:
> I seriously disagree on that, writing it as a for makes it totally 
> clear that the index initialization is part of the loop.
> I know, looks funny, not the way we have always done it, not invented 
> here...
>
Just to be clear, I didn't mean that in any bad way, just that sometimes 
a new format, even if correct and unambiguous, looks strange to the eye 
and is not used just because it jars. I still think putting 
initialization for a loop in the start of the for is defensive 
programming, perhaps I've had too many bumblers inherit my code.

-- 
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>
  "Woe unto the statesman who makes war without a reason that will still
  be valid when the war is over..." Otto von Bismark 


--
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/