On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 12:49 AM, Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 4:46 PM, Linus Torvalds
> <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>> What I'm *not* so much ok with is "const_max(5,sizeof(x))" erroring
>> out, or silently causing insane behavior due to hidden subtle type
>> casts..
>
> Yup! I like it as an explicit argument. Thanks!
>
What about something like this?
#define INTMAXT_MAX LLONG_MAX
typedef int64_t intmax_t;
#define const_max(x, y) \
__builtin_choose_expr( \
!__builtin_constant_p(x) || !__builtin_constant_p(y), \
__error_not_const_arg(), \
__builtin_choose_expr( \
(x) > INTMAXT_MAX || (y) > INTMAXT_MAX, \
__error_too_big(), \
__builtin_choose_expr( \
(intmax_t)(x) >= (intmax_t)(y), \
(x), \
(y) \
) \
) \
)
Works for different types, allows to mix negatives and positives and
returns the original type, e.g.:
const_max(-1, sizeof(char));
is of type 'long unsigned int', but:
const_max(2, sizeof(char));
is of type 'int'. While I am not a fan that the return type depends on
the arguments, it is useful if you are going to use the expression in
something that needs expects a precise (a printk() for instance?).
The check against the INTMAXT_MAX is there to avoid complexity (if we
do not handle those cases, it is safe to use intmax_t for the
comparison; otherwise you have to have another compile time branch for
the case positive-positive using uintmax_t) and also avoids odd
warnings for some cases above LLONG_MAX about comparisons with 0 for
unsigned expressions being always true. On the positive side, it
prevents using the macro for thing like "(size_t)-1".
Cheers,
Miguel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
