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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgZCBedi_xrysY2EAsN8tQjb3K4-qYtF-FaEE+GFuuE4Q@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2022 12:36:33 -0800 From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> To: David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com> Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] minmax.h: Slightly relax the type checking done by min() and max(). On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 7:00 AM David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com> wrote: > > - Skip the type test if either argument is a positive 'int' constant. > Instead cast the constant to 'int', the compiler may promote it > back to 'unsigned int' when doing the test. No. This looks very wrong to me. Maybe I'm mis-reading something, but it looks like this makes a "sizeof()" essentially be compatible with an "int" variable. That is horrendously wrong. It should warn. If you are doing a "min(i,sizeof(X))", and "i" is a signed integer, then something is wrong. What does that code expect? It shouldn't silently say "this is ok", because it most definitely isn't. So maybe I'm mis-reading this all and it doesn't actually do what I think it does, but this seems to relax things *much* too much. There's a reason we require types to be compatible, and you just removed some of the important signedness checks. Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists