linux-kernel - Re: kprobes: get rid of distinct type warning

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 9 Jan 2010 18:45:17 +0100
From:	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: kprobes: get rid of distinct type warning

On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 04:18:48PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 09:40:27 +0100
> Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com> wrote:
> > --- a/include/linux/cpumask.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/cpumask.h
> > @@ -90,10 +90,10 @@ extern const struct cpumask *const cpu_a
> >  #define cpu_present(cpu)	cpumask_test_cpu((cpu), cpu_present_mask)
> >  #define cpu_active(cpu)		cpumask_test_cpu((cpu), cpu_active_mask)
> >  #else
> > -#define num_online_cpus()	1
> > -#define num_possible_cpus()	1
> > -#define num_present_cpus()	1
> > -#define num_active_cpus()	1
> > +#define num_online_cpus()	1U
> > +#define num_possible_cpus()	1U
> > +#define num_present_cpus()	1U
> > +#define num_active_cpus()	1U
> >  #define cpu_online(cpu)		((cpu) == 0)
> >  #define cpu_possible(cpu)	((cpu) == 0)
> >  #define cpu_present(cpu)	((cpu) == 0)
> 
> I assume that this fixes the kprobes warning, so 
> 
> Commit-ID:  c2ef6661ce62e26a8c0978e521fab646128a144b
> Gitweb:     http://git.kernel.org/tip/c2ef6661ce62e26a8c0978e521fab646128a144b
> Author:     Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
> AuthorDate: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 13:02:24 +0100
> Committer:  Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
> CommitDate: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:25:31 +0100
> 
> becomes unneeded?

Nah, that would be too easy. The code still compares an int (10) and
an unsigned int. The only thing that could be changed with this patch
is that max_t isn't needed anymore, so that the patch below would
work as well (10U).
But I don't think it's worth it.

diff --git a/kernel/kprobes.c b/kernel/kprobes.c
index b7df302..85222a9 100644
--- a/kernel/kprobes.c
+++ b/kernel/kprobes.c
@@ -1035,7 +1035,7 @@ int __kprobes register_kretprobe(struct kretprobe *rp)
 	/* Pre-allocate memory for max kretprobe instances */
 	if (rp->maxactive <= 0) {
 #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT
-		rp->maxactive = max_t(unsigned int, 10, 2*num_possible_cpus());
+		rp->maxactive = max(10U, 2*num_possible_cpus());
 #else
 		rp->maxactive = num_possible_cpus();
 #endif
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/