linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] A minor amd64

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:	Sat, 16 Nov 2013 11:06:49 +0100
From:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	linux-edac <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] A minor amd64_edac fix for 3.13

On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 06:02:59PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> [ This was in my spam collection. I don't quite know why, but it might
> signify problems with your email setup. Quite often, when gmail is
> unhappy about kernel developer emails, it's been because their email
> provider ends up doing something odd.
> 
> But the headers actually have "spf=pass" and "dkim=pass", so it's
> nothing obvious. ]

Hmm, strange. Does this mean, you don't get other emails from my email
address or only this pull request? Say, do you have this one, for
example:

http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=138442829620489&w=2

where I ask you whether you're fine with Mauro and me playing interim
EDAC maintainers?

> That said, I don't much like the patch either. The "fixed' version
> looks worse than the original. If it's an unsigned type, no extra code
> will be generated,

Yes, correct, in both cases I have here:

.L779:
        .loc 1 1579 0
        cmpb    $4, %r10b       #, alias_channel
        ja      .L859   #,
.L847:

> and if it's a signed type, it's correct. In either way, the code looks
> good, and the range test means that people reading it don't even need
> to worry about whether the type is signed or not.
>
> If this patch was written because of some f*cking broken compiler
> warning, then just tell the compiler to shut the hell up about it.
> This is a clear example of where compiler warnings are actually making
> things worse.

Yeah, no, the compiler's fine here. Dave raised the issue about not
testing unsigned's for < 0:

http://www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/msg1597525.html

And I took it because it is less code in the .c source file to look at.
But I certainly don't care all that much whether the < 0 test is there
or not as long as the produced code is identical so...

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
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/