linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] locktorture: Fix assignment of boolean variables

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:   Mon, 3 Dec 2018 09:52:30 +0100
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Wen Yang <wen.yang99@....com.cn>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, zhong.weidong@....com.cn,
        mingo@...hat.com, will.deacon@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locktorture: Fix assignment of boolean variables


* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 01, 2018 at 12:37:01PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 01, 2018 at 04:31:49PM +0800, Wen Yang wrote:
> > > Fix the following warnings reported by coccinelle:
> > > 
> > > kernel/locking/locktorture.c:703:6-10: WARNING: Assignment of bool to 0/1
> > > kernel/locking/locktorture.c:918:2-20: WARNING: Assignment of bool to 0/1
> > > kernel/locking/locktorture.c:949:3-20: WARNING: Assignment of bool to 0/1
> > > kernel/locking/locktorture.c:682:2-19: WARNING: Assignment of bool to 0/1
> > > kernel/locking/locktorture.c:688:2-19: WARNING: Assignment of bool to 0/1
> > > kernel/locking/locktorture.c:648:2-20: WARNING: Assignment of bool to 0/1
> > > kernel/locking/locktorture.c:654:2-20: WARNING: Assignment of bool to 0/1
> > > 
> > > This patch also makes the code more readable.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Wen Yang <wen.yang99@....com.cn>
> > > CC: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
> > > CC: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
> > > CC: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
> > > CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> > 
> > Adding the current maintainers on CC.
> 
> So I strongly disagree with this. Anybody that has trouble with 0/1 vs
> false/true needs to stay the heck away from C.

Indeed, and it's actually *worse* to read, as 0/1 stands out more and is 
more compact than false/true...

The only reasonable case where bool is recommended is when functions are 
returning it, to make sure there's no mishap returning something else.

But for a plain .c variable? Nope.

> I would suggest we delete that stupid coccinelle scripts that generates
> these pointless warns.

Ack.

Thanks,

	Ingo