On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 3:46 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> So, AIUI, I can either get strict type checking, in which case, this
> is rejected (which I assume there is still a desire to have):
>
> int foo[const_max(6, sizeof(whatever))];
Ehh, yes, that looks fairly sane, and erroring out would be annoying.
But maybe we should just make the type explicit, and make it "const_max_t()"?
I think all the existing users are of type "max_t()" anyway due to the
very same issue, no?
At least if there's an explicit type like 'size_t', then passing in
"-1" becoming a large unsigned integer is understandable and clear,
not just some odd silent behavior.
Put another way: I think it's unacceptable that
const_max(-1,6)
magically becomes a huge positive number like in that patch of yours, but
const_max_t(size_t, -1, 6)
*obviously* is a huge positive number.
The two things would *do* the same thing, but in the second case the
type is explicit and visible.
> due to __builtin_types_compatible_p() rejecting it, or I can construct
> a "positive arguments only" test, in which the above is accepted, but
> this is rejected:
That sounds acceptable too, although the "const_max_t()" thing is
presumably going to be simpler?
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
