linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 03/13] x86/microcode/AMD: Clean up find_equiv

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: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1701171956290.3645@nanos>
Date:   Tue, 17 Jan 2017 20:02:59 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
cc:     X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/13] x86/microcode/AMD: Clean up find_equiv_id()

On Tue, 17 Jan 2017, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> +	for (; equiv_table && equiv_table->installed_cpu; equiv_table++)
> +		if (sig == equiv_table->installed_cpu)
> +			return equiv_table->equiv_cpu;

This would be perfect if you just kept the braces around the for loop.

	for (; cond; incr)
		do_something();

parses perfectly fine as it matches the expectation of a single line statement
following the for().

	for (; cond; incr)
		if (othercond)
			do_something();

not so much because we expect a single line statement due to the lack of a
opening brace after the for()

	for (; cond; incr) {
		if (othercond)
			do_something();
	}

That's how it parses best. The opening brace after the for() tells us: here
comes a multiline statement. And the inner if (othercond) w/o the opening
brace tells: here comes a single line statement.

Reading code/patches very much depends on patterns and structuring. If they
are consistent the reading flow is undisturbed.

Thanks,

	tglx