linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 08/22] bitops: introduce MANY

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:   Tue, 10 May 2022 10:57:25 -0700
From:   Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@...il.com>
To:     Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...ia.fr>,
        Michał Mirosław <mirq-linux@...e.qmqm.pl>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@...g.fr>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
        Matti Vaittinen <Matti.Vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Chris Zankel <chris@...kel.net>,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
        "Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>,
        Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>,
        "open list:TENSILICA XTENSA PORT (xtensa)" 
        <linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/22] bitops: introduce MANY_BITS() macro

Hi Yury,

On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 8:48 AM Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com> wrote:
> arch/xtensa/kernel/traps.c and include/linux/log2.h define very similar
> functions with different behaviour. XTENSA defines IS_POW2(), and
> log2.h defines is_power_of_2(). The difference is that IS_POW2()
> considers 0 as power of 2, while is_power_of_2() - does not.

IS_POW2 is constructed this way because we know that there is at least
one non-zero bit in the value that it tests.

> This discrepancy may confuse reader. From mathematical point of view,
> 0 is not a power of 2.

If it would reduce the confusion we can add a check that the value is
non-zero in the IS_POW2 macro.

I'd really like to not introduce the local macro and just use something
standard, but I can't use is_power_of_2 in a preprocessor condition,
can I?

-- 
Thanks.
-- Max