linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] arm64: Explicitly mark 64-bit constant as unsigned long

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <51cf0f37dc694a858fcc422763f6ca72@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date:   Mon, 19 Nov 2018 12:07:16 +0000
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:     'Olof Johansson' <olof@...om.net>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
CC:     "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] arm64: Explicitly mark 64-bit constant as unsigned long


From: Olof Johansson
> Sent: 17 November 2018 01:55
...
> -#if (SCTLR_EL2_SET ^ SCTLR_EL2_CLEAR) != 0xffffffffffffffff
> +#if (SCTLR_EL2_SET ^ SCTLR_EL2_CLEAR) != 0xfffffffffffffffful
>  #error "Inconsistent SCTLR_EL2 set/clear bits"
>  #endif

Wouldn't this be clearer if written:
	#if SCTLR_EL2_SET != ~SCTLR_EL2_CLEAR
which then begs the question of why there are separate 'set' and 'clear' masks.

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)