linux-kernel - Re: somebody dropped a (warning) bomb

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, 19 Feb 2007 14:58:54 +0300
From:	Sergei Organov <osv@...ad.com>
To:	Rene Herman <rene.herman@...il.com>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	J.A. MagallÃÃÃÃÃÂ³n 
	<jamagallon@....com>, Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>,
	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: somebody dropped a (warning) bomb

Rene Herman <rene.herman@...il.com> writes:
[...]
> Given char's special nature, shouldn't the conclusion of this thread
> have long been simply that gcc needs -Wno-char-pointer-sign? (with
> whatever default, as far as I'm concerned).

I entirely agree that all the char business in C is messy enough to
justify separate warning switch(es) in GCC.

However, I still insist that the problem with the code:

   void foo(char *c);
   unsigned char *u;
   signed char *s;
   ...
   foo(u);
   foo(s);

is not (only) in signedness, as neither 'u' nor 's' has compatible type
with the "char*", no matter what is the sign of "char", so if one cares
about type safety he needs warnings on both invocations of foo().

-- Sergei.
-
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/