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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 13:28:06 +0300 From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> To: George Spelvin <lkml@....org> Cc: st5pub@...dex.ru, adrian.hunter@...el.com, ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org, benh@...nel.crashing.org, bp@...en8.de, darrick.wong@...cle.com, dchinner@...hat.com, dedekind1@...il.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, hpa@...or.com, jannh@...gle.com, jlbec@...lplan.org, jpoimboe@...hat.com, jslaby@...e.cz, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, mark@...heh.com, mingo@...hat.com, mpe@...erman.id.au, naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com, paulus@...ba.org, peterz@...radead.org, richard@....at, sfr@...b.auug.org.au, tglx@...utronix.de, vgupta@...opsys.com, x86@...nel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] Lib: sort.h: replace int size with size_t size in the swap function On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 09:56:07AM +0000, George Spelvin wrote: > On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 12:35:55 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > Hmm... If (*swap)() is called recursively it means the change might increase > > stack usage on 64-bit platforms. > > > > Am I missing something? > > Under what conceivable circumstance would someone write a recursive > (*swap)() function? > > You're technically right, but the precondition is more fantastical > than "if the U.K.'s parliament get their shit together before the > 12th", so I have a hard time worrying about it. > > But you did make me think of something: the whole reason swap() > takes a size argument is for the benefit of the (no longer existing) > generic swap functions. All of the custom swap functions ignore > it. > > So how about *deleting* the parameter instead? That simplifies > everything. I like this idea! -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists