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
