linux-kernel - Re: pud_bad vs pud

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]

Date:	Thu, 05 Feb 2009 11:26:56 -0800
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC:	William Lee Irwin III <wli@...omorphy.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: pud_bad vs pud_bad

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> But the 32-bit check does the exact same thing but via a single binary 
> operation: it checks whether any bits outside of those bits are zero - just 
> via a simpler test that compiles to more compact code.
>
> So i'd go with the 32-bit version. (unless there are some sign-extension 
> complications i'm missing - but i think we got rid of those already.)

OK, fair enough.  I wouldn't be surprised if gcc does that transform 
anyway, but we may as well be consistent about it.

    J
--
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/