linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fork: simplify overcomplicated if conditions

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <c6780d87-1d0c-4075-b351-40f3c8f6e4b1@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2025 13:16:57 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Joey Pabalinas <joeypabalinas@...il.com>,
 Kiryl Shutsemau <kirill@...temov.name>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fork: simplify overcomplicated if conditions

On 04.09.25 12:04, Joey Pabalinas wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2025 at 10:56:44AM +0100, Kiryl Shutsemau wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 03, 2025 at 08:46:29PM -1000, Joey Pabalinas wrote:
>>> Since `((a & (b|c)) == (b|c))` is the same thing as `(a & (b|c))`, use
>>> the second version which is simpler.
>>
>> Huh? No it is not the same thing.
>>
>> a = 1;
>> b = 1;
>> c = 2;
>>
>> (a & (b|c)) is 1 which is true.
>> ((a & (b|c)) == (b|c)) is false.
> 
> Ah, you are right. My mistake.

I suspect you didn't even test that patch?

Please do us all a favor and don't send any more such patches.

-- 
Cheers

David / dhildenb