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: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 11:45:05 -0800 From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> To: Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@...ux.intel.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>, Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Liang Z Li <liang.z.li@...el.com>, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>, Huang Rui <ray.huang@....com>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>, Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Chen Yucong <slaoub@...il.com>, Alexandre Julliard <julliard@...ehq.org>, Stas Sergeev <stsp@...t.ru>, Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>, "Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, linux-msdos@...r.kernel.org, wine-devel@...ehq.org, Tony@...or.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 15/17] x86/traps: Fixup general protection faults caused by UMIP Luck <tony.luck@...el.com> From: hpa@...or.com Message-ID: <C4474E45-EAE0-45D3-8DB1-78AA1C2548A8@...or.com> On February 24, 2017 11:36:19 AM PST, Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@...ux.intel.com> wrote: >On Fri, 2017-02-24 at 11:11 -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> > In a previous version Andy Lutomirsky suggested that >> > if (user_mode(regs) && (fixup_umip_exception(regs) == 0)) >> > >> > was easier to read :). Although at the time fixup_umip_exception >> > returned a numeric value. Now it only returns true/false for >> > successful/failed emulation. If with true/false not comparing to >> true >> > makes it easier to read, I will make the change. >> >> I think == true is silly :) > >Then I'll make the change. > >Thanks and BR, >Ricardo It's worse than silly, it is potentially toxic. true is a macro which it's defined as 1. Thus foo == true ... doesn't actually mean what people *think* it does, which is roughly the same thing as !!foo However, if foo is not a boolean, this is *very* different; consider if foo is 2. -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists