netdev - Re: [PATCH] drivers: net: ethernet: intel: e1000: e1000

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Mon, 18 Aug 2014 17:43:40 +0200
From:	Krzysztof Majzerowicz-Jaszcz <cristos@...serv.org>
To:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
CC:	Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>,
	jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers: net: ethernet: intel: e1000: e1000_ethtool.c
 coding style fixes

On 18/08/14 17:40, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-08-18 at 17:36 +0200, Krzysztof Majzerowicz-Jaszcz wrote:
>> On 18/08/14 17:31, Joe Perches wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2014-08-18 at 08:29 -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>>>> Doing any kind of pointer math on a void pointer is generally unsafe as
>>>> it is an incomplete type.  The only reason why it works in GCC is
>>>> because GCC has a nonstandard extension that makes it report as having a
>>>> size of 1.
>>>
>>> I know.  It's used in quite a few places in kernel code
>>> so I believe it's now a base assumption for the kernel.
>>>
>> Ok, so what do you suggest - void* or char* here ?
> 
> Do what you (or Alex) think is best.
> 
> My main point was trying to make the code a bit
> clearer.a
> 
OK, thank you for your suggestions. I'll send an updated version of this patch soon.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html