[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202008051349.553E49E12@keescook>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2020 13:50:24 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>, Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
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
patch...
--
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.
