linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/10] Fix confusion around MAX

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]

Message-ID: <b3ed3da7-ffa3-0d35-34c1-27b159af43bb@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 28 Sep 2023 18:57:18 +0200
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
Cc:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, quic_jhugo@...cinc.com,
        snitzer@...nel.org, dm <dm-devel@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] Fix confusion around MAX_ORDER

On 9/28/23 09:50, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
>>> Fix the bugs and then change the definition of MAX_ORDER to be
>>> inclusive: the range of orders user can ask from buddy allocator is
>>> 0..MAX_ORDER now.
> I think that exclusive MAX_ORDER is more intuitive in the C language -
> i.e. if you write "for (i = 0; i < MAX_ORDER; i++)", you are supposed to
> loop over all allowed values. If you declare an array "void
> *array[MAX_ORDER];" you are supposed to hold a value for each allowed
> order.
> 
> Pascal has for loops and array dimensions with inclusive ranges - and it
> is more prone to off-by-one errors.

I agree it's somewhat confusing either way but the ship has sailed, the 
patch has been included in Linux for several months.

Paolo