On Mon, Sep 01, 2025 at 08:20:18PM +0200, Vegard Nossum wrote:
>
> On 01/09/2025 18:56, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > > @@ -459,13 +462,15 @@ void sym_calc_value(struct symbol *sym)
> > > > sym_calc_choice(choice_menu);
> > > > newval.tri = sym->curr.tri;
> > > > } else {
> > > > - if (sym->visible != no) {
> > > > + if (sym->usable) {
> > > > /* if the symbol is visible use the
> > > > user value
> > > > * if available, otherwise try the
> > > > default value
> > > > */
> > > > if (sym_has_value(sym)) {
> > > > + tristate value =
> > > > sym->transitional ?
> > > > +
> > > > sym->def[S_DEF_USER].tri : sym->visible;
> > > > newval.tri =
> > > > EXPR_AND(sym->def[S_DEF_USER].tri,
> > > > -
> > > > sym->visible);
> > > > + value);
> > > This looks a bit odd to me. Just thinking out loud: your new logic is
> > > there to be able to use a value even though it's not visible. In the
> > > case where it's transitional you use the .config value instead of the
> > > condition that makes it visible.
> > >
> > > Could you simply change sym_calc_visibility() instead to always return
> > > 'yes' when the symbol is transitional? Wouldn't that simplify everything
> > > in sym_calc_value()?
> > It's a tristate, so "m" is also possible besides "y". (sym->visible is
> > also a tristate. 🙂
>
> That would be fine, right?
>
> We'd pass the if (sym->visible != no) check... we'd do the
>
> newval.tri = EXPR_AND(sym->def[S_DEF_USER].tri, sym->visible);
>
> EXPR_AND() is basically min() (with n=0, m=1, y=2), so effectively it
> would end up doing
>
> newval.tri = min(sym->def[S_DEF_USER].tri, 2);
>
> which is the same as
>
> newval.tri = sym->def[S_DEF_USER].tri;
>
> That's what your code is currently doing too, but in a much more
> roundabout way.
Right, it was this:
newval.tri = EXPR_AND(sym->def[S_DEF_USER].tri, sym->visible);
But I made it effectively:
if (sym->transitional)
newval.tri = EXPR_AND(sym->def[S_DEF_USER].tri, sym->def[S_DEF_USER].tri);
else
newval.tri = EXPR_AND(sym->def[S_DEF_USER].tri, sym->visible);
That first "if" is kind of pointless. I just sent the v3 before I saw
this email. :P
I was trying to avoid yet more indentation, but I could change it to:
if (sym->transitional)
newval.tri = sym->def[S_DEF_USER].tri;
else
newval.tri = EXPR_AND(sym->def[S_DEF_USER].tri,
sym->visible);
?
--
Kees Cook
