linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/6] pcmcia/3c574_cs: Fix dubious bitfield warning

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:	Wed, 12 Dec 2007 02:40:56 +0100
From:	Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@...dent.ltu.se>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
CC:	linux-pcmcia@...ts.infradead.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] pcmcia/3c574_cs: Fix dubious bitfield warning

Alan Cox wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 05:32:38 +0100 (MET)
> Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@...dent.ltu.se> wrote:
>
>   
>> Fixing:
>>   CHECK   drivers/net/pcmcia/3c574_cs.c
>> drivers/net/pcmcia/3c574_cs.c:194:13: warning: dubious bitfield without explicit `signed' or `unsigned'
>> drivers/net/pcmcia/3c574_cs.c:196:14: warning: dubious bitfield without explicit `signed' or `unsigned'
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@...dent.ltu.se>
>> ---
>> Is there a reason for not doing it this way?
>>     
>
> How is the endianness handled here (I suspect its always been broken)
>   
Guess so, but it should not handle the endians differently with such a 
change, does it?
>   
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/pcmcia/3c574_cs.c b/drivers/net/pcmcia/3c574_cs.c
>> index ad134a6..97b6daa 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/pcmcia/3c574_cs.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/pcmcia/3c574_cs.c
>> @@ -190,10 +190,10 @@ enum Window3 {			/* Window 3: MAC/config bits. */
>>  union wn3_config {
>>  	int i;
>>  	struct w3_config_fields {
>> -		unsigned int ram_size:3, ram_width:1, ram_speed:2, rom_size:2;
>> -		int pad8:8;
>> -		unsigned int ram_split:2, pad18:2, xcvr:3, pad21:1, autoselect:1;
>> -		int pad24:7;
>> +		u8 ram_size:3, ram_width:1, ram_speed:2, rom_size:2;
>> +		u8 pad8;
>> +		u8 ram_split:2, pad18:2, xcvr:3, pad21:1;
>> +		u8 autoselect:1, pad24:7;
>>     
>
> Just changing the int pad to unsigned int pad would be safer in terms of
> not causing changes. Simply delcaring a 32bit field and bit masks to
> and/or into it is probably a lot saner in the general case.
>   
Thought about it before and with the endian-issue it seem like a better 
solution.
So, something like this?


View attachment "drivers_net_pcmcia_3c574_cs.c-dubious-bitfield.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (1063 bytes)