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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 13:42:19 -0700 From: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com> To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>, Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org, Megha Dey <megha.dey@...el.com>, "Wang, Rui Y" <rui.y.wang@...el.com>, Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>, Xiaodong Liu <xiaodong.liu@...el.com>, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch] crypto: sha256-mb - cleanup a || vs | typo On Wed, 2016-06-29 at 10:05 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 06/29/16 07:42, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > and | behave basically the same here but || is intended. It causes a > > static checker warning to mix up bitwise and logical operations. > > > > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com> > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/crypto/sha256-mb/sha256_mb.c b/arch/x86/crypto/sha256-mb/sha256_mb.c > > index c9d5dcc..4ec895a 100644 > > --- a/arch/x86/crypto/sha256-mb/sha256_mb.c > > +++ b/arch/x86/crypto/sha256-mb/sha256_mb.c > > @@ -299,7 +299,7 @@ static struct sha256_hash_ctx *sha256_ctx_mgr_submit(struct sha256_ctx_mgr *mgr, > > * Or if the user's buffer contains less than a whole block, > > * append as much as possible to the extra block. > > */ > > - if ((ctx->partial_block_buffer_length) | (len < SHA256_BLOCK_SIZE)) { > > + if ((ctx->partial_block_buffer_length) || (len < SHA256_BLOCK_SIZE)) { > > /* Compute how many bytes to copy from user buffer into > > * extra block > > */ > > > As far as I know the | was an intentional optimization, so you may way > to look at the generated code. > > -hpa > Yes, this is an intentional optimization. Is there any scenario where things may break with the compiler? Tim
Powered by blists - more mailing lists