linux-kernel - Re: generic bool and sparse errors?

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:	Wed, 06 Jun 2007 13:17:44 -0700
From:	"Kok, Auke" <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com>
To:	Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@...dent.ltu.se>
CC:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Josh Triplett <josh@...edesktop.org>
Subject: Re: generic bool and sparse errors?

Richard Knutsson wrote:
> Kok, Auke wrote:
>> I'm experimenting with using the generic bool type and using sparse I 
>> get tons of these messages:
>>
>> warning: incorrect type in argument 4 (different signedness)
>>     expected bool [unsigned] [usertype] *[unsigned] success
>>     got bool *<noident>
>>
>> I'm not really worried about this, I assume that sparse hasn't caught 
>> up with what bool really means, but perhaps this can be looked into by 
>> someone who knows sparse well. The warnings don't really add up and 
>> with more people switching to use the generic bool this may beceome 
>> unwanted.
 >
> Actually, I am "assigned" to that. :)

ah cool

> Just out of curiousity, where do you see those messages? In the log for 
> allyesconfig on i386 I only found ntfs/super.c with similar output.

I was poking around replacing the boolean_t typedef in e1000, so it's nothing 
upstream. Just run `sed -i s/boolean_t/bool/g` on all the files in 
drivers/net/e1000 to see :)

the version of sparse is that in fc6, so that may be out-of-date (?).

>> alternatively we might need to reconsider the `typedef _Bool bool;` 
>> declaration and force it to be unsigned. I'm not sure what to think of 
>> that.
> I do not see how that would make any sense.

well the sparse warning is about signedness. Either sparse needs to "know" that 
bool is unsigned, or the kernel headers need to somehow make bool unsigned... 
the latter choice would come down to just that, but it doesn't look like a good 
idea to me either somehow.

Auke
-
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/