linux-kernel - Re: lzo1x_decompress_safe: Macro compares unsigned to 0 (NO

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20140630162354.GB24179@kroah.com>
Date:	Mon, 30 Jun 2014 09:23:54 -0700
From:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	"Don A. Bailey" <donb@...uritymouse.com>
Cc:	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
	Markus Oberhumer <markus@...rhumer.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: lzo1x_decompress_safe: Macro compares unsigned to 0 (NO_EFFECT)

On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 09:34:44AM -0600, Don A. Bailey wrote:
> In the case of macro instances that include a '0', the overflow test is
> purposefully benign. We don't need a test for these cases. It was easy to throw
> a '0' in there to accommodate for the new two-param call. But, to appease
> Coverity, a second single-param macro that doesn't check for overflow could be
> created. 

Not needed, we don't need to "apease" coverity :)

Let's just leave this as-is.

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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/