On Wed, Jun 09, 2021 at 04:17:13PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 12:24:49PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > - if (system_supports_bti() && has_interp == is_interp &&
> > - (*p & GNU_PROPERTY_AARCH64_FEATURE_1_BTI))
> > - arch->flags |= ARM64_ELF_BTI;
> > + if (system_supports_bti() &&
> > + (*p & GNU_PROPERTY_AARCH64_FEATURE_1_BTI)) {
> > + if (is_interp) {
> > + arch->flags |= ARM64_ELF_INTERP_BTI;
> > + } else {
> > + arch->flags |= ARM64_ELF_EXEC_BTI;
> > + }
> Nit: surplus curlies? (coding-style.rst does actually say to drop them
> when all branches of an if are single-statement one-liners -- I had
> presumed I was just being pedantic...)
I really think this hurts readability with the nested if inside
another if with a multi-line condition.
> > - if (prot & PROT_EXEC)
> > - prot |= PROT_BTI;
> > + if (state->flags & ARM64_ELF_EXEC_BTI && !is_interp)
> > + prot |= PROT_BTI;
> > + }
> Is it worth adding () around the bitwise-& expressions? I'm always a
> little uneasy about the operator precedence of binary &, although
> without looking it up I think you're correct.
Sure. I'm fairly sure the compiler would've complained about
this case if it were ambiguous, I'm vaguely surprised it didn't
already.
> Feel free to adopt if this appeals to you, otherwise I'm also fine with
> your version.)
I'll see what I think when I get back to looking at this
properly.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
