linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] irq_flags_t: intro and core annotations

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]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0710251734190.17781@fbirervta.pbzchgretzou.qr>
Date:	Thu, 25 Oct 2007 17:40:03 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...putergmbh.de>
To:	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] irq_flags_t: intro and core annotations

Hi,

On Oct 21 2007, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
>
>One of type of bugs steadily being fought is the following one:
>
>	unsigned int flags;
>	spin_lock_irqsave(&lock, flags);
>
>where "flags" should be "unsigned long". Here is far from complete list 
>of commits fixing such bugs:
>

How about making spin_lock_irqsave actually take a pointer to flags? 
(Which would be the logical choice if it were a function and not a 
macro...) That would flag up all violations ("without cast to different 
pointer" or so) while usually not breaking compilation.

Of course, irq_flags_t is probably the best long-term solution if one 
wants to hide a struct. (Even then perhaps, use a pointer instead?)
-
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/