linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 4/7] fat: restructure export

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]

Message-ID: <CAKYAXd-DZ+bXNve22ei2RXT1atH0nKp6=qbE_e+5j8+oZAg2pQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 18 Feb 2013 23:49:38 +0900
From:	Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...il.com>
To:	OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@...sung.com>,
	Ravishankar N <ravi.n1@...sung.com>,
	Amit Sahrawat <a.sahrawat@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/7] fat: restructure export_operations

2013/2/18 OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>:
> Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...il.com> writes:
>
>>>> +     if (parent && (len < FAT_FID_SIZE_WITH_PARENT)) {
>>>> +             *lenp = FAT_FID_SIZE_WITH_PARENT;
>>>> +             return 255;
>>>> +     } else if (len < FAT_FID_SIZE_WITHOUT_PARENT) {
>>>> +             *lenp = FAT_FID_SIZE_WITHOUT_PARENT;
>>>> +             return 255;
>>>> +     }
>>>
>>> This check strange. "parent && len == FAT_FID_SIZE_WITHOUT_PARENT" will
>>> overwrite over limit of fh size?
>> I need to check more. because I followed the logic in
>> export_encode_fh() function.
>
> Ah, my fault, it doesn't have real problem. But code is quite strange.
>
> If input is "parent && len >= FAT_FID_SIZE_WITHOUT_PARENT", "else if
> (len < FAT_FID_SIZE_WITHOUT_PARENT)" check is entirely useless, but this
> code itself checks "len".
>
> if (parent) {
>         if (len < FAT_FID_SIZE_WITH_PARENT)
>                 /* error */
> } else {
>         if (len < FAT_FID_SIZE_WITHOUT_PARENT)
>                 /* error */
> }
>
> I think this would readable, and I guess this will generates faster/simpler
> code (at least, this doesn't depends an optimization of gcc).
I agree. I will change it as your opinion.
Thanks a lot, OGAWA!.
>
> Thanks.
> --
> OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
--
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/