linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 14/34] new step_into() flag: WALK

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:   Sat, 22 Feb 2020 18:14:45 -0800
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 14/34] new step_into() flag: WALK_NOFOLLOW

On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 5:20 PM Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
>         if (likely(!d_is_symlink(path->dentry)) ||
> -          !(flags & WALK_FOLLOW || nd->flags & LOOKUP_FOLLOW)) {
> +          !(flags & WALK_FOLLOW || nd->flags & LOOKUP_FOLLOW) ||
> +          flags & WALK_NOFOLLOW) {

Humor me, and don't mix bitwise ops with logical boolean ops without
parentheses, ok?

And yes, the old code did it too, so it's not a new thing.

But as it gets even more complex, let's just generally strive for doing

   (a & b) || (c & d)

instead of

   a & b || c & d

to make it easier to mentally see the grouping.

               Linus