Linus Torvalds writes: (Summary) On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 2:20 AM, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com> wrote:
I think that's just leftovers from my original (untested) thing that also did the access itself. So that __u._bit masking wasn't masking the pointer, it was masking the value that was *read* from the pointer, so that you could know that an invalid access returned 0/NULL, not just the first value in the array.
0/NULL, not just the first value in the array.
Linus
Linus
Linus
[...]
add a comment explaining that?I think that's just leftovers from my original (untested) thing that also did the access itself. So that __u._bit masking wasn't masking the pointer, it was masking the value that was *read* from the pointer, so that you could know that an invalid access returned 0/NULL, not just the first value in the array.
0/NULL, not just the first value in the array.
Linus
Linus
Linus
