linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] posix_types.h: make __NFDBITS compatible with glibc definition

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 24 Jul 2012 12:24:30 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Jeff Law <law@...hat.com>
Cc:	Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] posix_types.h: make __NFDBITS compatible with glibc definition

On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Jeff Law <law@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> Please refer to the original discussion where they did evaluate the cost of
> this change and tested that the final change made no difference to the
> generated code.

Umm. That bugzilla entry seems to be talking about a *sane* change, namely

-  ({ unsigned long int __d = (d);					    \
+  ({ unsigned long int __d = (unsigned long int) (d);			    \

in __FD_ELT(), which is totally different from the one Josh talks about.

In fact, that glibc change looks fine. The patch Josh has been pushing
has changed __NFDBITS to signed, and generates bad code. But
apparently that patch then didn't come from glibc at all?

                   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/