linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2.6.31.1] include/linux/kmemcheck.h: fix a sparse 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <19f34abd0910140426vd9bcb41x460ed8779b7495a5@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 14 Oct 2009 13:26:45 +0200
From:	Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
To:	Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.31.1] include/linux/kmemcheck.h: fix a sparse warning

2009/10/14 Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...il.com>:
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> 2009/10/2 Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...il.com>:
>> > On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Bart Van Assche
>> > <bart.vanassche@...il.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Checking a 2.6.31.1 kernel configured with allyesconfig/allmodconfig
>> >> with sparse (make C=2) triggers a sparse warning on code that uses the
>> >> kmemcheck_annotate_bitfield() macro. An example of such a warning:
>> >>
>> >> include/net/inet_sock.h:208:17: warning: do-while statement is not a compound statement
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...il.com>
>> >> Cc: Vegard Nossum <vegardno@....uio.no>
>> >> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
>> >>
>> >> --- linux-2.6.31.1/include/linux/kmemcheck-orig.h       2009-09-26 13:53:44.000000000 +0200
>> >> +++ linux-2.6.31.1/include/linux/kmemcheck.h    2009-09-26 13:53:56.000000000 +0200
>> >> @@ -137,13 +137,13 @@ static inline void kmemcheck_mark_initia
>> >>        int name##_end[0];
>> >>
>> >>  #define kmemcheck_annotate_bitfield(ptr, name)                         \
>> >> -       do if (ptr) {                                                   \
>> >> +       do { if (ptr) {                                                 \
>> >>                int _n = (long) &((ptr)->name##_end)                    \
>> >>                        - (long) &((ptr)->name##_begin);                \
>> >>                BUILD_BUG_ON(_n < 0);                                   \
>> >>                                                                        \
>> >>                kmemcheck_mark_initialized(&((ptr)->name##_begin), _n); \
>> >> -       } while (0)
>> >> +       } } while (0)
>> >>
>> >>  #define kmemcheck_annotate_variable(var)                               \
>> >>        do {                                                            \
>> >
>> > (ping)
>> >
>> > Did anyone already have the time to review the patch above ?
>>
>> A patch for this problem has already been applied in latest mainline.
>
> Unfortunately this issue is still present in 2.6.31.4, which has been
> released on October 12 (yesterday). Is the patch that has been applied
> in the mainline kernel suitable for backporting ?

I assumed that this wouldn't be suitable for stable kernels, as the
change is purely syntactic. Is there a good reason for applying this
patch to the stable series? Perhaps Greg can answer this (Cced)?


Vegard
--
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/