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:   Fri, 4 Aug 2023 11:14:07 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>
Cc:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] minmax: Relax check to allow comparison between
 int and small unsigned constants.

On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 at 03:56, David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com> wrote:
>
> Convert constants between 0 and INT_MAX to 'int' prior to comparisons
> so that min(signed_var, 20u) and, more commonly, min(signed_var, sizeof())
> are both valid.

I really think this whole series is broken.

What does the "are both valid" even *MEAN*?

It's simply not valid to do a "min(int, 20u)". What is the meaning of
it? You seem to think that the meaning is to do the operation in
"int". Why?

You made up a definition of "valid" that I think is completely invalid.

                Linus

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ