linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/8] lockref: use bool for false/true returns

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: <CAGudoHHVd8twoP5VsZkkW_V45X+i7rrApZctW=HGakM9tcnyHA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2025 13:04:14 +0100
From: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, 
	Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Gao Xiang <xiang@...nel.org>, Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org>, 
	Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@...hat.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-erofs@...ts.ozlabs.org, 
	gfs2@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] lockref: use bool for false/true returns

On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 7:29 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 04:51:27PM +0100, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> > fwiw I confirmed clang does *not* have the problem, I don't know about gcc 14.
> >
> > Maybe I'll get around to testing it, but first I'm gonna need to carve
> > out the custom asm into a standalone testcase.
> >
> > Regardless, 13 suffering the problem is imo a good enough reason to
> > whack the change.
>
> Reverting a change because a specific compiler generates sligtly worse
> code without even showing it has any real life impact feels like I'm
> missing something important.
>

The change is cosmetic and has an unintended impact on code gen, which
imo already puts a question mark on it.

Neither the change itself nor the resulting impact are of note and in
that case I would err on just not including it for the time being, but
that's just my $0.03.
-- 
Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik gmail.com>