Hi Linus,
On 9/27/21 8:33 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 6:22 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> More specifically, ' think '\377' may be either -1 or 255 depending on
>> the architecture.
>> On most architectures, 'char' is implicitly signed, but on some others
>> it is not.
>
> Yeah. That code is just broken.
>
> And Arnd, your patch may be "conceptually minimal", in that it keeps
> thed broken code and makes it work. But it just dials up the oddity to
> 11.
>
> The proper patch is just this appended thing that stops playing silly
> games, and just uses "memcmp()".
>
> I've verified that with sane build configurations, it just generates
>
> testq %rsi, %rsi
> je .L25
> cmpl $-33620224, (%rsi)
> je .L31
>
> for that
>
> if (data && !memcmp(data, VBSF_MOUNT_SIGNATURE, 4)) {
>
> test. With a lot of crazy debug options you'll actually see the
> "memcmp()", but the bad code generation is the least of your options
> in that case.
I agree that your suggestion is to be the best solution,
so how do we move forward with this, do I turn this into a
proper patch with you as the author and Arnd as Reported-by and
if yes may I add your Signed-off-by to the patch ?
Or do I make myself author and set you as Suggested-by ?
Regards,
Hans
