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]

Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2024 10:45:05 -0800
From: Deepak Gupta <debug@...osinc.com>
To: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
Cc: "broonie@...nel.org" <broonie@...nel.org>, "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 Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 9:50 AM Edgecombe, Rick P
<rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com> wrote:
>
> 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

Thanks. Just checked out the link you sent.
Yes it's not needed. Will remove it.