linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Remove errors caught by checkpatch.pl in kernel/acct.c

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

Date:	Mon, 16 Feb 2009 14:19:58 +0100
From:	Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
To:	Manish Katiyar <mkatiyar@...il.com>
CC:	mingo@...e.hu, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove errors caught by checkpatch.pl in kernel/acct.c

Manish Katiyar wrote:
> Below patch removes errors generated by checkpatch.pl in
> kernel/acct.c. Caught by Ingo's code-quality script.

Bad changelog:  Just say that this is a whitespace adjustment.

> @@ -416,7 +416,7 @@ static comp_t encode_comp_t(unsigned long value)
>  #define MANTSIZE2       20                      /* 20 bit mantissa. */
>  #define EXPSIZE2        5                       /* 5 bit base 2 exponent. */
>  #define MAXFRACT2       ((1ul << MANTSIZE2) - 1) /* Maximum
> fractional value. */

Your MUA inserted line wraps where there should none.  This won't apply
as a patch anymore.

> @@ -513,13 +514,13 @@ static void do_acct_process(struct bsd_acct_struct *acct,
>  		       + current->group_leader->start_time.tv_nsec;
>  	/* convert nsec -> AHZ */
>  	elapsed = nsec_to_AHZ(run_time);
> -#if ACCT_VERSION==3
> +#if ACCT_VERSION == 3
>  	ac.ac_etime = encode_float(elapsed);
>  #else
>  	ac.ac_etime = encode_comp_t(elapsed < (unsigned long) -1l ?
> -	                       (unsigned long) elapsed : (unsigned long) -1l);
> +				(unsigned long) elapsed:(unsigned long) -1l);

Should IMO be	(unsigned long)elapsed : (unsigned long)-1l);

or simply stay as it was.

But more importantly, the whole expression looks bogus to me.  elapsed
is an u64 and thus clearly defined regarding its size, while unsigned
long will have different sizes on different CPU architectures.

Is this intentional?
-- 
Stefan Richter
-=====-==--= --=- =----
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
--
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/