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-=wjgqs7Uev9=X8qP0mR0C+KoRze6d+1SoMib5x6o3yZSQg@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2022 13:54:12 -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 Sun, Nov 27, 2022 at 1:42 PM David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com> wrote: > > Why should it be a problem? > min(-4, sizeof(X)) becomes min(-4, (int)sizeof(X)) and thus -4. > Without the cast the -4 is converted to a very large unsigned > value so the result is sizeof(X) - not at all expected. That is EXACTLY the problem. You even enumerate it, and work through exactly what happens, and then you STILL say "this is not a problem". It damn well is a HUGE problem. When people say "I need my offset to be smaller than the size of the object", then a value like -4 IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. It should cause a huge type warning about how the test was broken. David, this is literally *EXACTLY* why we have those strict type issues. The fact that you don't even seem to realize why this would be a problem makes me NAK this patch so hard that it isn't even funny. Andrew, please remove this from your queue. It's not even remotely acceptable. I was hoping I was misreading the patch, but it turns out that this "relax the rules way too much" was apparently intentional. Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists