linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] mm: abstract shadow stack vma behind arch_is_shadow_stack

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: <19703a88d00b6e2d9b6ce2bf911ee34d465b1a11.camel@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2024 17:50:06 +0000
From: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
To: "broonie@...nel.org" <broonie@...nel.org>, "debug@...osinc.com"
	<debug@...osinc.com>
CC: "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "akpm@...ux-foundation.org"
	<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] mm: abstract shadow stack vma behind
 arch_is_shadow_stack_vma

On Fri, 2023-12-22 at 15:51 -0800, Deepak Gupta wrote:
> +
> +static inline bool arch_is_shadow_stack_vma(vm_flags_t vm_flags)
> +{
> +       return (vm_flags & VM_SHADOW_STACK) ? true : false;
> +}
> +

The bit after the "?" should be unneeded. I would think that patterns
like:

   bool res = val ? true : false;

...should never be needed for the kernel's current bool typedef. Is
there some special arch define consideration or something, I'm unaware
of?

https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/coding-style.html#using-bool