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:   Fri, 15 Oct 2021 10:13:05 -0700
From:   Nathan Chancellor <>
To:     Dan Carpenter <>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <>,
        Nick Desaulniers <>,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: wlan-ng: Avoid bitwise vs logical OR warning in

On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 12:43:44PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 02:57:03PM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> > A new warning in clang points out a place in this file where a bitwise
> > OR is being used with boolean expressions:
> > 
> > In file included from drivers/staging/wlan-ng/prism2usb.c:2:
> > drivers/staging/wlan-ng/hfa384x_usb.c:3787:7: warning: use of bitwise '|' with boolean operands [-Wbitwise-instead-of-logical]
> >             ((test_and_clear_bit(THROTTLE_RX, &hw->usb_flags) &&
> >             ~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > drivers/staging/wlan-ng/hfa384x_usb.c:3787:7: note: cast one or both operands to int to silence this warning
> > 1 warning generated.
> Both sides of this bitwise OR are bool, so | and || are equivalent
> logically.  Clang should not warn about it.

I do not disagree. The original motivation for the warning was code like

if (a() & b())

where a '&&' was intended to short circuit the call to b() if a() was
false but then it expanded to encompass bitwise OR as well. The clang
developers felt that warning on bitwise OR was worthwhile because most
of the time, '||' was intended. Feel free to comment on the Phabricator
thread if you feel strongly, there are not too many instances of this
warning and I think the '&' vs '&&' aspect of the warning is useful.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists