linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] core kernel fixes

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:	Fri, 10 Jul 2009 12:52:18 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@....com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] core kernel fixes

On Fri, 10 Jul 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > but I really migth have done soemthing wrong there. It's a simple 
> > function, but somebody needs to double-check that I haven't made 
> > it worse.
> 
> Looks correct to me.

Note, I didn't look at how 'end' works, and it really does matter if 'end' 
is an "inclusive" or "exclusive" end pointer address. So my replacement 
overlap() function was written more as a conceptual patch - I did not 
check the exact semantics of the arguments passed in.

If 'end' is exclusive, then 'b1' should be calculated as 'a1+size-1', 
because the ranges must have the same rules. And then you should use the 
'strict inequality' operators for testing the ranges.

		Linus
--
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/