linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] fat: New macros to determine the FAT variant (32, 16 or 12)

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]

Message-ID: <CAKxm1-G7WpJV0_3=TLyY_JMN=Wz1GkM2w6buc6ez+WUZ_tyEhg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 14 Dec 2018 10:14:35 +0200
From:   Tamir Carmeli <carmeli.tamir@...il.com>
To:     hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp
Cc:     joe@...ches.com, jthumshirn@...e.de,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, axboe@...nel.dk,
        martin.petersen@...cle.com, bvanassche@....org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] fat: New macros to determine the FAT variant (32, 16
 or 12)

Thanks a lot for the comments, I'll work on V2 to fix them.
I just want to make sure, is there a reason why I shouldn't delete
FAT_FIRST_ENT, as Joe Perches commented?

On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 5:16 AM OGAWA Hirofumi
<hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp> wrote:
>
> Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> writes:
>
> >>
> >> -#define FAT_FIRST_ENT(s, x)     ((MSDOS_SB(s)->fat_bits == 32 ? 0x0FFFFF00 : \
> >> -    MSDOS_SB(s)->fat_bits == 16 ? 0xFF00 : 0xF00) | (x))
> >> +#define IS_FAT12(sbi) (sbi->fat_bits == 12)
> >> +#define IS_FAT16(sbi) (sbi->fat_bits == 16)
> >> +#define IS_FAT32(sbi) (sbi->fat_bits == 32)
> >
> > sbi should be parenthesized or perhaps better these should be
> > static inline bool functions
>
> Right, rather this is the bug (not hit yet though) that should be fixed.
>
> Thanks.
> --
> OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>