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  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:	Sun, 09 Mar 2014 12:11:46 -0700
From:	Eric Dumazet <>
To:	Alexei Starovoitov <>
Cc:	"David S. Miller" <>,
	Daniel Borkmann <>,
	Ingo Molnar <>, Will Drewry <>,
	Steven Rostedt <>,
	Peter Zijlstra <>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <>,
	Hagen Paul Pfeifer <>,
	Jesse Gross <>,
	Thomas Gleixner <>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <>,
	Tom Zanussi <>,
	Jovi Zhangwei <>,
	Eric Dumazet <>,
	Linus Torvalds <>,
	Andrew Morton <>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <>,
	Pekka Enberg <>,
	Arjan van de Ven <>,
	Christoph Hellwig <>,
	LKML <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 net-next 1/3] filter: add Extended BPF interpreter
 and converter

On Sun, 2014-03-09 at 11:57 -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:

> In sk_run_filter_ext() I used "u64 stack[64];", but "u64 stack[60];" is
> safe too, but I didn't want to go into extensive explanation
> of 'magic' 60 number in the first patch, so I just rounded it to 64.
> Since now you understand, I can make it stack[60] now :)

My point was : You should not use 64 or 60 in the C code.

I should not have to ask you why it is safe.

It should be obvious just reading the source code. And so far it is not.

Thats why we use macros and comments at the macro definition.

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