From: Kees Cook <email@example.com>
To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Andrew Morton <email@example.com>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] minmax: clamp more efficiently by avoiding extra comparison
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2022 11:30:58 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <202209261130.2C96929E38@keescook> (raw)
On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 02:23:48PM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 12:00 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 24, 2022 at 12:37:26PM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 03:54:12PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 17:40:01 +0200 "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
> > ...
> > > Worth noting, by the way, is that the input validation check already
> > > caught a bug when 0day test bot choked:
> > >
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-hwmon/20220924101151.4168414-1-Jason@zx2c4.com/
> > Hooray, it was a good idea! :-)
> > > So, options:
> > > 1) Keep this patch as-is, because it is useful on modern compilers.
> > > 2) Add an ifdef on compiler version, so we generate the best code in
> > > each case.
> > > 3) Go back to testing twice, but keep the checker macro because it's
> > > apparently useful.
> > > 4) Do nothing and discard this series.
> > >
> > > Any of those are okay with me. Opinions?
> > I tend to case 3) (I believe you typo'ed double 2) cases) and apply the rest
> > as a separate change with all downsides explained (kinda 1) approach).
> Alright, I'll do that. v3 on its way, then.
Cool. I've dropped v2 from my -next tree.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-09-26 18:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <CAHmME9rH47UFp6sXbDU0UZrTosFrDAa+m_FtqMqRFFNzmOzTdA@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <20220923154001.4074849-1-Jason@zx2c4.com>
[not found] ` <email@example.com>
2022-09-24 10:37 ` [PATCH v2] minmax: clamp more efficiently by avoiding extra comparison Jason A. Donenfeld
2022-09-25 16:29 ` Andrew Morton
2022-09-26 10:00 ` Andy Shevchenko
2022-09-26 12:23 ` Jason A. Donenfeld
2022-09-26 18:30 ` Kees Cook [this message]
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:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* 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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).