Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220217184829.1991035-1-jakobkoschel@gmail.com>
 <20220217184829.1991035-4-jakobkoschel@gmail.com> <CAHk-=wg1RdFQ6OGb_H4ZJoUwEr-gk11QXeQx63n91m0tvVUdZw@mail.gmail.com>
 <6DFD3D91-B82C-469C-8771-860C09BD8623@gmail.com> <CAHk-=wiyCH7xeHcmiFJ-YgXUy2Jaj7pnkdKpcovt8fYbVFW3TA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wgLe-OSLTEHm=V7eRG6Fcr0dpAM1ZRV1a=R_g6pBOr8Bg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK8P3a0DOC3s7x380XR_kN8UYQvkRqvE5LkHQfK2-KzwhcYqQQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAHk-=wicJ0VxEmnpb8=TJfkSDytFuf+dvQJj8kFWj0OF2FBZ9w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wicJ0VxEmnpb8=TJfkSDytFuf+dvQJj8kFWj0OF2FBZ9w@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Wed, 23 Feb 2022 12:54:45 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wjtZG_0zjgVt0_0JDZgq=xO4LHYAbH764HTQJsjHTq-oQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 03/13] usb: remove the usage of the list iterator
 after the loop
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc:     Jakob <jakobkoschel@gmail.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>,
        "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@embeddedor.com>,
        Brian Johannesmeyer <bjohannesmeyer@gmail.com>,
        Cristiano Giuffrida <c.giuffrida@vu.nl>,
        "Bos, H.J." <h.j.bos@vu.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 12:43 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> Of course, the C standard being the bunch of incompetents they are,
> they in the process apparently made left-shifts undefined (rather than
> implementation-defined). Christ, they keep on making the same mistakes
> over and over. What was the definition of insanity again?

Hey, some more googling on my part seems to say that somebody saw the
light, and it's likely getting fixed in newer C standard version.

So it was just a mistake, not actual malice. Maybe we can hope that
the tide is turning against the "undefined" crowd that used to rule
the roost in the C standards bodies. Maybe the fundamental security
issues with undefined behavior finally convinced people how bad it
was?

            Linus