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:	Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:57:47 -0500
From:	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.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 14-02-11 09:23 PM, David Rientjes wrote:
> 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.

OK, fair enough -- it seems surprisingly unused, as well as strcmp, despite
my gut feeling that they'd be used in multiple places.  I'll send a v2
that deletes all three once it passes allyesconfig on linux-next for x86
32/64/uml.

Thanks,
Paul.
--
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/