Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2020 13:50:24 -0700
From: Kees Cook <>
To: Rasmus Villemoes <>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <>, Leon Romanovsky <>,
	"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <>,
	Matthew Wilcox <>,,,
	Segher Boessenkool <>
Subject: Re: [RFC] saturate check_*_overflow() output?

On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 01:38:58PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> Anyway, we don't need to apply it to the last expression inside ({}), we
> can just pass the whole ({}) to must_check_overflow() as in
> -#define check_sub_overflow(a, b, d) ({         \
> +#define check_sub_overflow(a, b, d) must_check_overflow(({             \

Oh! Yes, of course. I was blinded by looking inside the macro and not
wanting to spoil the type magic. Yes, that's perfect. I will spin a

Kees Cook

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.