On Thu, 2006-07-27 at 04:48 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 26 July 2006 22:28, [email protected] wrote:
> > Have not found any (real) reason letting the cpp know about false/true. As I
> > said in the last version, the only reason seem to be for the userspace. Well, as
> > there is no program of my knowlage that needs it, they were removed.
> >
> If we don't expect this to show up in the ABI (which I hope is true), then
> the definition should probably be inside of #ifdef __KERNEL__. Right
> now, it's inside of (!__KERNEL_STRICT_NAMES), which is not exactly the
> same.
>
If _Bool does end up in the user-kernel ABI, be advised that validating
them will be tricky ("b == true || b == false" or "!!b" won't work), and
the compiler could in theory generate code which tests truthfulness by
comparing to 1 in one place and non-zero in another.
My brief IRC conversation with gcc people regarding validating untrusted
_Bool resulted in the instruction to never store a value in a _Bool
until after it has been validated.
--
Nicholas Miell <[email protected]>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
