linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] drbd: change one-bit bitfield to be an unsigned int

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]

Date:	Wed, 18 Jun 2014 07:50:32 +0200
From:	Martin Kepplinger <martink@...teo.de>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
CC:	drbd-dev@...ts.linbit.com, drbd-user@...ts.linbit.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] drbd: change one-bit bitfield to be an unsigned int

Am 2014-06-17 21:46, schrieb David Rientjes:
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2014, Martin Kepplinger wrote:
> 
>> The one-bit bitfields are assigned true (1) or false (0) and checked
>> for them respectively. While it should work either way and -1 is true
>> as well it is more clear to see what's going on when using an unsigned int
>> because 1 doesn't silently become -1 behind the label true.
>>
> 
> Nothing is silently becoming anything, I have no idea what you're trying 
> to address.  Is there something in drivers/block/drbd that needs this 
> change?

nope.

> 
>> Signed-off-by: Martin Kepplinger <martink@...teo.de>
>> ---
>> Thanks for looking at it. This is more of a question: Does this make sense
>> to you now? I can be mistaken. It just wasn't totally clear to me at first
>> sight and even though it should be, why not try to improve it.
>>
> 
> There's no improvement here, you realize that the sign of one-bit 
> bitfields are implementation defined, correct?  On what implementation 
> does this patch make a difference?
> 
> If you are trying to convert these to unsigned for consistency, then just 
> say so in the changelog and don't talk about silent changes or comparisons 
> to true and false that obfuscate the fact that this is just a trivial 
> cleanup that is based on the author's own preference rather than anything 
> else.

learning learning learning. in this case, why sparse calls this dubious.
This would be more appropriate on kernelnewbies or the like, sorry.

> 
>> sparse called it 'dubious' before the change.
>>
>> (built but untested)
>>
>>  drivers/block/drbd/drbd_interval.h |    4 ++--
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_interval.h b/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_interval.h
>> index f38fcb0..8d670e6 100644
>> --- a/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_interval.h
>> +++ b/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_interval.h
>> @@ -9,8 +9,8 @@ struct drbd_interval {
>>  	sector_t sector;	/* start sector of the interval */
>>  	unsigned int size;	/* size in bytes */
>>  	sector_t end;		/* highest interval end in subtree */
>> -	int local:1		/* local or remote request? */;
>> -	int waiting:1;
>> +	unsigned int local:1;	/* local or remote request? */
>> +	unsigned int waiting:1;
>>  };
>>  
>>  static inline void drbd_clear_interval(struct drbd_interval *i)
> --
> 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/
> 

--
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/