linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 00/13] [RFC] Rust support

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, 17 Apr 2021 13:46:17 +0000
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:     'Peter Zijlstra' <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
CC:     Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>,
        Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
        Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@...gle.com>,
        Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org" <rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 00/13] [RFC] Rust support

From: Peter Zijlstra
> Sent: 17 April 2021 12:17
...
> > (i'd argue this is C being broken; promoting only as far as int, when
> > assigning to an unsigned long is Bad, but until/unless either GCC fixes
> > that or the language committee realises that being stuck in the 1970s
> > is Bad, people are going to keep making this kind of mistake)
> 
> Well, I think the rules actually make sense, at the point in the syntax
> tree where + happens, we have 'unsigned char' and 'int', so at that
> point we promote to 'int'. Subsequently 'int' gets shifted and bad
> things happen.

The 1970s were fine.
K&R C was sign preserving - so 'unsigned char' promoted to 'unsigned int'.
The ANSI C committee broke things by changing it to value preserving
with the strong preference for signed types.

Even with ANSI C the type of ((unsigned char)x + 1) can be unsigned!
All it needs as an architecture where sizeof (int) == 1.
(sizeof (char) has to be 1 - even though that isn't directly explicit.)

Of course, having 32-bit 'char' and 'int' does give problems with
the value for EOF.

	David

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