netdev - Re: Lots of new warnings with gcc-7.1.1

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, 15 Jul 2017 07:03:16 -0400
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>,
        Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
        Sathya Prakash <sathya.prakash@...adcom.com>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
        xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
        linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Media Mailing List <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
        IDE-ML <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Lots of new warnings with gcc-7.1.1

Hello,

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 03:31:02PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > We also have about a bazillion
> >
> >     warning: ‘*’ in boolean context, suggest ‘&&’ instead
> >
> > warnings in drivers/ata/libata-core.c, all due to a single macro that
> > uses a pattern that gcc-7.1.1 doesn't like. The warning looks a bit
> > debatable, but I suspect the macro could easily be changed too.
> >
> > Tejun, would you hate just moving the "multiply by 1000" part _into_
> > that EZ() macro? Something like the attached (UNTESTED!) patch?
> 
> Tejun applied an almost identical patch of mine a while ago, but it seems to
> have gotten lost in the meantime in some rebase:

Yeah, I was scratching my head remembering your patch.  Sorry about
that.  It should have been routed through for-4.12-fixes.

> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9721397/
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9721399/
> 
> I guess I should have resubmitted the second patch with the suggested
> improvement.

The new one looks good to me.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun