linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/15] bitops: Change bitmap index from int to unsigned long

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: <1235576760.4645.3535.camel@laptop>
Date:	Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:46:00 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
Cc:	Justin Chen <jchen@...st41.cup.hp.com>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	bjorn.helgaas@...com, justin.chen@...com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/15] bitops: Change bitmap index from int to unsigned
 long

On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 08:37 -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 07:54:48AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > unsigned int wasn't large enough?
> 
> Adding one more bit only doubles the maximum size.  That buys us, what,
> another eighteen months until we have to change it again?  Unsigned long
> seems most sensible to me.  Unsigned long long probably isn't worth
> doing -- you'd have to be using one eighth of your address space on a
> single bitmap.

Are you serious? Bitmaps of length 4G-bit (512M-byte) are way past the
sanely allocatable size anyway.

The complaint was that the signed thingy resulted in out of bounds
pointers (apparently unsigned doesn't?)

--
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/