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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ka3dhrfkc42ydbiiqa4ygr545ndydcpekjco36sdwf2nypuy33@vpsgevacmzjv>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2025 00:04:40 -1000
From: Joey Pabalinas <joeypabalinas@...il.com>
To: 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 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.

-- 
Cheers,
Joey Pabalinas

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)