netdev - Re: [PATCH net] netlink: fix boolean evaluation on bound

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: <566F2F78.8020705@stressinduktion.org>
Date:	Mon, 14 Dec 2015 22:07:04 +0100
From:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] netlink: fix boolean evaluation on bound

On 14.12.2015 18:50, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-12-14 at 18:27 +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> 
>> Otherwise I would recommend adding a "!!" to express that we actually
>> want bound set based on the portid value?
> 
> Note that compiler already does the !! thing, when you store an integer
> into a bool var.

Exactly, the gcc compiler does that automatically when writing to a
_Bool type.

> So it definitely is a matter of taste and code readability.

Yes, as I wrote, this patch doesn't alter the any runtime behavior, it
confused me and thus I wanted to make the assignment more explicit.

It looked like a trap to me, thus I wanted to change it.

Bye,
Hannes

--
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