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  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:	Tue, 18 Feb 2014 14:20:29 -0800
From:	Linus Torvalds <>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <>
Cc:	Miklos Szeredi <>,
	Al Viro <>,
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <>,
	Linux-Fsdevel <>,
	Kernel Mailing List <>,
	Andy Lutomirski <>,
	Rob Landley <>,
	Christoph Hellwig <>,
	Karel Zak <>,
	"J. Bruce Fields" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/11] vfs: Don't allow overwriting mounts in the current
 mount namespace

On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Eric W. Biederman
<> wrote:
>> Minor nit: return value of any is_* function is either true or false, so why not
>> declare it bool?
> Because I am working on the core of the kernel and C compilers do weird
> things with bool variables (storing them in bytes...).  I expected a
> type that the C compiler does not do weird things with would be more
> readily received on a path whose performance people are interested in.

Yeah, I have to say that I'm not a huge fan of "bool". It has some odd
properties, especially in memory (ie as a structure member).

For this kind of function return value it actually tends to work very
well, and in fact often generates slightly better code than "int". So
I don't _hate_ bool, and we've certainly had a lot more use creep in
lately, but I also don't really see "bool" as much of an upside.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists