w*****g
发帖数: 16352 | 1 Linus Tovalds骂瞎写代码的小码农，荡气回肠，应该下发所有码农学习。
Christ people. This is just sh*t
.The conflict I get is due to stupid new gcc header file crap. But what
makes me upset is that the crap is for completely bogus reasons.
This is the old code in net/ipv6/ip6_output.c:
mtu -= hlen + sizeof(struct frag_hdr);
and this is the new “improved” code that uses fancy stuff that wants
magical built-in compiler support and has silly wrapper functions for when
it doesn’t exist:
if (overflow_usub(mtu, hlen + sizeof(struct frag_hdr), &mtu) ||
mtu <= 7)
goto fail_toobig;
and anybody who thinks that the above is (a) legible (b) efficient (even
with the magical compiler support) (c) particularly safe is just incompetent
and out to lunch.
The above code is sh*t, and it generates shit code. It looks bad, and there
’s no reason for it.
The code could *easily* have been done with just a single and understandable
conditional, and the compiler would actually have generated better code,
and the code would look better and moreunderstandable. Why is this not
if (mtu < hlen + sizeof(struct frag_hdr) + 8)
goto fail_toobig;
mtu -= hlen + sizeof(struct frag_hdr);
which is the same number of lines, doesn’t use crazy helper functions that
nobody knows what they do, and is much more obvious what it actually does. I
guarantee that the second more obvious version is easier to read and
understand. Does anybody really want to dispute this?
Really. Give me *one* reason why it was written in that idiotic way with two
different conditionals, and a shiny new nonstandard function that wants
particular compiler support to generate even half-way sane code, and even
then generates worse code? A shiny function that we have never ever needed
anywhere else, and that is just compiler-masturbation.
And yes, you still could have overflow issues if the whole “hlen +xyz”
expression overflows, but quite frankly, the “overflow_usub()“ code had
that too. So if you worry about that, then you damn well didn’t do the
right thing to begin with.
So I really see no reason for this kind of complete idiotic crap.
Tell me why. Because I’m not pulling this kind of completely insane stuff
that generates conflicts at rc7 time, and that seems to have absolutely no
reason for being an idiotic unreadable mess.
The code seems *designed* to use that new “overflow_usub()“ code. It seems
to be an excuse to use that function.
And it’s a f*cking bad excuse for that braindamage.
I’m sorry, but we don’t add idiotic new interfaces like this for idiotic
new code like that.
Yes, yes, if this had stayed inside the network layer I would never have
noticed. But since I *did* notice, I really don’t want to pull this. In
fact, I want to make it clear to *everybody* that code like this is
completely unacceptable. Anybody who thinks that code like this is “safe”
and “secure” because it uses fancy overflow detection functions is so far
out to lunch that it’s not even funny. All this kind of crap does is to
make the code an unreadable mess with code that no sane person will ever
really understand what it actually does.
Get rid of it. And I don’t *ever* want to see that shit again.
Linus
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 1.0.4 | g*****g
发帖数: 34805 | | g*********e
发帖数: 14401 | 3 这就不懂了 大公司里都讲究分工，你两行写完了，人家写helper func的人喝西北风去
啊？ |
|
