linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cgroup: add explicit cast and comment for return type conversion

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:	Mon, 25 May 2015 07:40:45 -0400
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@...r.at>
Cc:	Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@...dl.org>,
	Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cgroup: add explicit cast and comment for return type
 conversion

Hello, Nicholas.

On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 07:57:42AM +0200, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> nop not downward but signed/unsigned  if it were down it would not be
> a problem but signed/unsigned can be - for those cases where it can't
> be fixed up by changing the declarations or return variable types 
> explicit cast might make sense - as noted in the patch Im not sure either
> if this form of cleanups is helpful. 
> 
> In the kernel core there are about 400 signed/unsigned implicit 
> conversions (about 3k in the entire kernel) which is what Im trying to 
> remove or if that is not possible in a resonable way mark as false positive.

I still don't get it.  What does this buy us actually?  If we continue
to do this, people would just learn to add explicit cast when doing
sign conversions.  We just converge to a different behavior without
actually gaining any protection.  What's the benefit of doing this?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/