linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Change judgment len position

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]

Date:   Wed, 24 Oct 2018 10:03:08 -0700
From:   Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To:     joe@...ches.com
Cc:     Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, wanghaifine@...il.com,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Change judgment len position

On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 9:54 AM Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:

> I think if the point is to test for negative numbers,
> it's clearer to do that before using min_t.and it's
> probably clearer not to use min_t at all.
>

...

>
>         if (len > sizeof(int))
>                 len = sizeof(int);

It is a matter of taste really, I know some people (like me) sometimes
mixes min() and max()

I would  suggest that if someones wants to change the current code, a
corresponding test
would be added in tools/testing/selftests/net