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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 08:36:19 -0500 From: "John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com> To: Fabian Frederick <fabf@...net.be> Cc: Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@...il.com>, Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>, linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>, Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>, Chaoming Li <chaoming_li@...lsil.com.cn>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Emmanuel Grumbach <emmanuel.grumbach@...el.com>, b43-dev <b43-dev@...ts.infradead.org>, Stefano Brivio <stefano.brivio@...imi.it>, Intel Linux Wireless <ilw@...ux.intel.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1 net-next] wireless: remove unnecessary sizeof(u8) On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 06:56:27AM +0100, Fabian Frederick wrote: > > > > On 16 November 2014 at 23:33 Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@...il.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Fabian, > > > > On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 7:55 AM, Fabian Frederick <fabf@...net.be> wrote: > > > sizeof(u8) is always 1. > > > > I thought that sizeof(*variable) was preferred over sizeof(type), so > > shouldn't these be switched to that format instead? > > > > (I know that this is all no-op, but it should reduce the potential for > > highly unlikely bugs in the future. Also, the extra processing is > > compile-time not run-time.) > > > > Thanks, > > Hi Julian, > > Of course but char/u8/s8... allocations never use it and result would be the > same: > factor 1 multiplication. > > Those rare occurrences (+- 30 in the whole kernel) where we have > sizeof(u8/s8) is ambiguous. > > Having a patch removing it gives a pointer... > If the developer meant something else, he will be able to fix it. > > Regards, > Fabian sizeof(*variable) still seems safer. Are the compilers unable to optimize-away a "multiply by one"? John -- John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you linville@...driver.com might be all we have. Be ready. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists