Re: [PATCH] Avoid that check_shl_overflow() triggers a compiler warning when building with W=1

[Kees Cook]

On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 9:02 AM Leon Romanovsky <leonro@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 08:52:51AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 7:40 AM Leon Romanovsky <leonro@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 06:53:54AM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > > On 3/6/19 11:24 PM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > > My simple patch passes too :).
> > > >
> > > > Can you repost your patch?
> > >
> > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10841079/
> > >
> > > As Rasmus wrote, the thing is to avoid a < 0 check. In my patch,
> > > I converted a <= 0 to !(a > 0 || a == 0) expression.
> >
> > I'd be happy either way. Is there a larger benefit to having a safe
> > "is_non_negative()" helper, or should we go with the minimal change to
> > the shl macro?
>
> I personally prefer simplest possible solution.

Acked-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

Can this go via the rdma tree?

-Kees

>
> >
> > -Kees
> >
> > --
> > Kees Cook
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJcgU6mAAoJEORje4g2clinE94P/0pHFmUgwzRrVLxjqmnynNPC
> e+azQISKrZ4EBI5Is7VwFJuxtiZvsTveCxX0NpRxk3TLfHbA4V9jz4meJ6smp4UQ
> Z1uRnPbj2z5iucFN/8SelQvNTmqfvbuRSKpZ08XLxBB4XIAjFaNBbmD+REe7iSGD
> xiYNp96oHvKnzGZq/eViqz0rogewsTLHoEBwDkfgyDIqwO0/3qVElNhW7Z6g/v/7
> 2D4yZiB82wIBf+00taEQNnpI/3naVvqdfl34iYGuq51Fd2S36lfmMZ1DUffd/Eq+
> jRq8PiNisFK+0A/96hwi2npVN0LS4tA5at6PHhqOfVxMOt/XAmeKu3cCaxHhjbfb
> Oi2+X9/EBDdgVmylssQFwjNaLuXB00109IVDcQGgzTsN8xoTNiwla8gt3fVhDWt+
> X0jQuSnqtANt75/0mucirBoUppCB59aZ9ygolWe4UwBpVV0ZGH/0MFwcOhlpglGB
> PbrKaTxP3qQeil8wGXQsJyPGOCLBGh1Qj0C6NG1wsJSX/Zq8awEoz+JlYCXezaq6
> 4R0jSHu50BGp7gt5iePRGeUhjPFVGHucJZ2b6fuDZ3ARN8MtQYmrYDyRqnFJZsCE
> UZFd4SZ8UzfIETd17IowOmOs62HwXyIi1WzoWjiHsNjH2dxwiB6Lh1JBvAFQgzJ1
> 0wRa0DMnyLzmIoOdyvQm
> =NFtk
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



-- 
Kees Cook