linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/10] x86, asm: use bool for bitops and other assembly outputs

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]

Message-ID: <88387994-fbf1-83dd-d58d-343498776a11@zytor.com>
Date:	Wed, 8 Jun 2016 02:12:05 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/10] x86, asm: use bool for bitops and other assembly
 outputs

On 06/08/16 02:01, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> That's a divergence with an underlying reason - but not harmonizing the return 
> code is an unforced error AFAICS and can be fixed.
>

Perhaps.  It is also no real question that "bool" is the right return
type for a single bit.  Changing that in all architectures at one time
is a major undertaking, however, and it seems to me that it would be
better to leave that to the respective architecture maintainers.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'd really like to avoid the upcasting to "int"
which isn't needed, because in my testing I find that it definitely
encourages gcc to generate poor code.

	-hpa