linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Add const to pointer qualifiers for __chk_user_ptr and __chk_io

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]

Message-ID: <20070326184656.GB24841@chrisli.org>
Date:	Mon, 26 Mar 2007 11:46:56 -0700
From:	Christopher Li <sparse@...isli.org>
To:	Russ Cox <rsc@...ch.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add const to pointer qualifiers for __chk_user_ptr and __chk_io_ptr.

On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 02:59:39PM -0400, Russ Cox wrote:
> No, you have it backward.
> It is valid to pass void* to a const void* function.
> It is *not* valid to pass const void* to a void* function.
> 
> Right now __chk_user_ptr is a void* function, meaning
> that all the places where it gets passed a const void*
> are technically illegal -- gcc would warn about these, and
> it is a (separate, as you observed) bug that sparse does not.
> 
> The patch changes __chk_user_ptr to be a const void*
> function, meaning that it will be legal to pass either void*
> or const void* to it.  This is the correct semantics.

Hah, I see. Thanks for the explain.

Ack.

Chris
-
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/