netdev - Re: [PATCH] bpf, x32: remove unneeded conversion to bool

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: <20200423021021.GA16982@udknight>
Date:   Thu, 23 Apr 2020 10:10:22 +0800
From:   Wang YanQing <udknight@...il.com>
To:     "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:     Jason Yan <yanaijie@...wei.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
        kuznet@....inr.ac.ru, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
        mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, x86@...nel.org, ast@...nel.org,
        daniel@...earbox.net, kafai@...com, songliubraving@...com,
        yhs@...com, andriin@...com, john.fastabend@...il.com,
        kpsingh@...omium.org, lukenels@...washington.edu,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bpf, x32: remove unneeded conversion to bool

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 11:43:58AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 2020-04-20 05:37, Jason Yan wrote:
> > The '==' expression itself is bool, no need to convert it to bool again.
> > This fixes the following coccicheck warning:
> > 
> > arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c:1478:50-55: WARNING: conversion to bool
> > not needed here
> > arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c:1479:50-55: WARNING: conversion to bool
> > not needed here
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jason Yan <yanaijie@...wei.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c | 4 ++--
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> 
> x32 is not i386.
> 
> 	-hpa
Hi! H. Peter Anvin and all

I use the name "x86_32" to describe it in original commit 03f5781be2c7
("bpf, x86_32: add eBPF JIT compiler for ia32"), but almost all following
committers and contributors use the world "x32", I think it is short format
for x{86_}32.

Yes, I agree, "x32" isn't the right name here, I think "x32" is well known
as a ABI, so maybe we should use "x86_32" or ia32 in future communication.

Which one is the best name here? x86_32 or ia32 or anything other?

Thanks!