linux-kernel - Re: [Patch v4 1/2] staging/lustre: add parenthesis to macro argument

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]

Date:   Fri, 28 Apr 2017 11:42:27 +0200
From:   "greg@...ah.com" <greg@...ah.com>
To:     Rishiraj Manwatkar <manwatkar@...look.com>
Cc:     "andreas.dilger@...el.com" <andreas.dilger@...el.com>,
        "oleg.drokin@...el.com" <oleg.drokin@...el.com>,
        "lustre-devel@...ts.lustre.org" <lustre-devel@...ts.lustre.org>,
        "devel@...verdev.osuosl.org" <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch v4 1/2] staging/lustre: add parenthesis to macro argument

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 03:50:05PM +0000, Rishiraj Manwatkar wrote:
> Add parenthesis to cl_io_for_each() macro to avoid potential issues with
> unexpected argument expansion in CPP.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rishiraj Manwatkar <manwatkar@...look.com>
> ---
>  v1 -> v2: Added mailing list in cc.
>  v2 -> v3: Changed From: to be same as Signed-off-by:.
>  v3 -> v4: Changed Subject line and patch description as suggested by andreas.dilger@...el.com
>  drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/cl_io.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/cl_io.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/cl_io.c
> index ee7d677..0997254 100755
> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/cl_io.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/cl_io.c
> @@ -52,9 +52,9 @@
>   */
>  
>  #define cl_io_for_each(slice, io) \
> -	list_for_each_entry((slice), &io->ci_layers, cis_linkage)
> +	list_for_each_entry((slice), &(io)->ci_layers, cis_linkage)
>  #define cl_io_for_each_reverse(slice, io)		 \
> -	list_for_each_entry_reverse((slice), &io->ci_layers, cis_linkage)
> +	list_for_each_entry_reverse((slice), &(io)->ci_layers, cis_linkage)

No, the original code is correct, that's going to be a variable only,
not any type of "complex argument".

thanks,

greg k-h