From: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
To: Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
Cc: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
"linux-efi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-efi@vger.kernel.org>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>,
"mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
"hpa@zytor.com" <hpa@zytor.com>,
"tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 1/5] efi/runtime-wrappers: detect FW irq flag corruption
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 16:18:41 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKv+Gu8yH4u0-DNezUTk5b1DQJdEaH4RxR7YMQcwmkuRmEaNEw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160425141557.GA2829@codeblueprint.co.uk>
On 25 April 2016 at 16:15, Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Apr, at 03:12:01PM, Robin Murphy wrote:
>> >+static void efi_call_virt_check_flags(unsigned long flags, const char *call)
>> >+{
>> >+ unsigned long cur_flags;
>> >+ bool mismatch;
>> >+
>> >+ local_save_flags(cur_flags);
>> >+
>> >+ mismatch = !!((cur_flags ^ flags) & ARCH_EFI_IRQ_FLAGS_MASK);
>>
>> nit: the assignment itself is already a conversion to bool, so the
>> excitement is redundant here.
>
> This was intentional. I asked Mark to make this change so that it's
> explicit for the developer that we're performing the type conversion.
But replacing an implicit boolean cast with an explicit one makes
little sense, no? Don't we simply want '!= 0' here if you need a
boolean expression?
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
To: Matt Fleming <matt-mF/unelCI9GS6iBeEJttW/XRex20P6io@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>,
"linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org"
<linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
Russell King - ARM Linux
<linux-lFZ/pmaqli7XmaaqVzeoHQ@public.gmane.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>,
"linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org"
<linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
Leif Lindholm
<leif.lindholm-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>,
"mingo-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org"
<mingo-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>,
"hpa-YMNOUZJC4hwAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org"
<hpa-YMNOUZJC4hwAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
"tglx-hfZtesqFncYOwBW4kG4KsQ@public.gmane.org"
<tglx-hfZtesqFncYOwBW4kG4KsQ@public.gmane.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org"
<linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 1/5] efi/runtime-wrappers: detect FW irq flag corruption
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 16:18:41 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKv+Gu8yH4u0-DNezUTk5b1DQJdEaH4RxR7YMQcwmkuRmEaNEw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160425141557.GA2829-mF/unelCI9GS6iBeEJttW/XRex20P6io@public.gmane.org>
On 25 April 2016 at 16:15, Matt Fleming <matt-mF/unelCI9GS6iBeEJttW/XRex20P6io@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Apr, at 03:12:01PM, Robin Murphy wrote:
>> >+static void efi_call_virt_check_flags(unsigned long flags, const char *call)
>> >+{
>> >+ unsigned long cur_flags;
>> >+ bool mismatch;
>> >+
>> >+ local_save_flags(cur_flags);
>> >+
>> >+ mismatch = !!((cur_flags ^ flags) & ARCH_EFI_IRQ_FLAGS_MASK);
>>
>> nit: the assignment itself is already a conversion to bool, so the
>> excitement is redundant here.
>
> This was intentional. I asked Mark to make this change so that it's
> explicit for the developer that we're performing the type conversion.
But replacing an implicit boolean cast with an explicit one makes
little sense, no? Don't we simply want '!= 0' here if you need a
boolean expression?
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org (Ard Biesheuvel)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCHv3 1/5] efi/runtime-wrappers: detect FW irq flag corruption
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 16:18:41 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKv+Gu8yH4u0-DNezUTk5b1DQJdEaH4RxR7YMQcwmkuRmEaNEw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160425141557.GA2829@codeblueprint.co.uk>
On 25 April 2016 at 16:15, Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Apr, at 03:12:01PM, Robin Murphy wrote:
>> >+static void efi_call_virt_check_flags(unsigned long flags, const char *call)
>> >+{
>> >+ unsigned long cur_flags;
>> >+ bool mismatch;
>> >+
>> >+ local_save_flags(cur_flags);
>> >+
>> >+ mismatch = !!((cur_flags ^ flags) & ARCH_EFI_IRQ_FLAGS_MASK);
>>
>> nit: the assignment itself is already a conversion to bool, so the
>> excitement is redundant here.
>
> This was intentional. I asked Mark to make this change so that it's
> explicit for the developer that we're performing the type conversion.
But replacing an implicit boolean cast with an explicit one makes
little sense, no? Don't we simply want '!= 0' here if you need a
boolean expression?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-04-25 14:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-04-25 13:46 [PATCHv3 0/5] efi: detect erroneous firmware IRQ manipulation Mark Rutland
2016-04-25 13:46 ` Mark Rutland
2016-04-25 13:46 ` Mark Rutland
2016-04-25 13:46 ` [PATCHv3 1/5] efi/runtime-wrappers: detect FW irq flag corruption Mark Rutland
2016-04-25 13:46 ` Mark Rutland
2016-04-25 14:12 ` Robin Murphy
2016-04-25 14:12 ` Robin Murphy
2016-04-25 14:12 ` Robin Murphy
2016-04-25 14:15 ` Matt Fleming
2016-04-25 14:15 ` Matt Fleming
2016-04-25 14:18 ` Ard Biesheuvel [this message]
2016-04-25 14:18 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2016-04-25 14:18 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2016-04-25 14:24 ` Matt Fleming
2016-04-25 14:24 ` Matt Fleming
2016-04-25 14:24 ` Matt Fleming
2016-04-25 14:27 ` Mark Rutland
2016-04-25 14:27 ` Mark Rutland
2016-04-25 14:27 ` Mark Rutland
2016-04-25 15:59 ` Matt Fleming
2016-04-25 15:59 ` Matt Fleming
2016-04-25 15:59 ` Matt Fleming
2016-04-25 16:03 ` Mark Rutland
2016-04-25 16:03 ` Mark Rutland
2016-04-25 16:03 ` Mark Rutland
2016-04-25 14:33 ` Robin Murphy
2016-04-25 14:33 ` Robin Murphy
2016-04-25 14:33 ` Robin Murphy
2016-04-25 13:46 ` [PATCHv3 2/5] arm64/efi: enable runtime call flag checking Mark Rutland
2016-04-25 13:46 ` Mark Rutland
2016-04-25 13:46 ` Mark Rutland
2016-04-25 13:54 ` Will Deacon
2016-04-25 13:54 ` Will Deacon
2016-04-25 13:46 ` [PATCHv3 3/5] arm/efi: " Mark Rutland
2016-04-25 13:46 ` Mark Rutland
2016-04-25 13:46 ` [PATCHv3 4/5] x86/efi: " Mark Rutland
2016-04-25 13:46 ` Mark Rutland
2016-04-25 13:46 ` [PATCHv3 5/5] efi/runtime-wrappers: remove ARCH_EFI_IRQ_FLAGS_MASK ifdef Mark Rutland
2016-04-25 13:46 ` Mark Rutland
2016-04-25 16:03 ` [PATCHv3 0/5] efi: detect erroneous firmware IRQ manipulation Matt Fleming
2016-04-25 16:03 ` Matt Fleming
2016-04-25 16:03 ` Matt Fleming
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAKv+Gu8yH4u0-DNezUTk5b1DQJdEaH4RxR7YMQcwmkuRmEaNEw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=leif.lindholm@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-efi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=matt@codeblueprint.co.uk \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.