linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: fix two sparse warnings in early boot string handling

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

Date:	Tue, 11 Feb 2014 18:23:22 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>
cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: fix two sparse warnings in early boot string
 handling

On Tue, 11 Feb 2014, Paul Gortmaker wrote:

> > > Fixes:
> > > 
> > > arch/x86/boot/compressed/../string.c:60:14: warning: symbol 'atou' was not declared. Should it be static?
> > > arch/x86/boot/string.c:133:6: warning: symbol 'strstr' was not declared. Should it be static?
> > > 
> > > The atou one could be considered a false positive; it seems somehow
> > > caused by including ./string.c from within /compressed/string.c file.
> > > However git grep shows only the atou prototype and declaration, so
> > > it is completely unused and we can hence delete it.
> > > 
> > 
> > Declaring a prototype in a header file would be pointless if there is no 
> > current breakage; I don't see why you can't remove strstr() in 
> > arch/x86/boot/string.c entirely.  What breaks?
> 
> Explicit breakage vs. sparse warnings are two different things.  It may
> be that we can delete strstr() just like I did for atou() -- but in the
> interest of doing the minimal change, I did just what was needed for
> fixing the sparse warnings for strstr.  I can test if it can be removed,
> but it has the smell of generic-libc usage all over it...
> 

When the minimal change is to add an unnecessary prototype for a function 
that is not referenced, it doesn't seem acceptable.
--
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/