linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] usb: fix warning in usbtest module

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:	Sun, 8 May 2011 15:58:47 -0700
From:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
To:	Greg Dietsche <gregory.dietsche@....edu>
Cc:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>, mfuzzey@...il.com,
	tom.leiming@...il.com, ak@...ux.intel.com,
	linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: fix warning in usbtest module

On Sun, May 08, 2011 at 02:12:59PM -0500, Greg Dietsche wrote:
> On 05/08/2011 09:37 AM, Alan Stern wrote:
> >On Sat, 7 May 2011, Greg Dietsche wrote:
> >
> >>On amd64 unsigned is not as wide as pointer and this causes
> >>a compiler warning. Switching to uintptr_t fixes the problem
> >>in an arch independent manner.
> >People tend to prefer to see non-typedef'ed type names, whenever
> >possible.  In this case, it would be enough to change the type to
> >unsigned long.
> >
> >Lots of code throughout the kernel stores pointer values in unsigned
> >long variables.  I've never heard any recommendation for using
> >uintptr_t instead.
> >
> I was leaning towards unsigned long at first too, but a several
> things made me reconsider:
> 1) uintptr_t adapts correctly to the size of a pointer on all
> architectures per C99
> 2) I greped the kernel source and found a number of instances where
> uintptr_t is used
> 3) unsigned long is technically too wide (though this is better than
> too small...) for some architectures
> 
> If the general consensus is that unsigned long is a better choice
> for the kernel, I will update my patch. I do, however think that
> uintptr_t is the best choice from a technical perspective and prefer
> it over unsigned long.

Sorry, but no, use 'unsigned long' please.  In the kernel, it's
guaranteed to hold the size of a pointer, that is one of the
requirements of Linux.

And as for C99, those types don't make any sense in the kernel, only in
userspace.  See Linus's posts on this a few years back on lkml if you
want all of the details.

So please redo this patch with 'unsigned long' and I will be glad to
queue it up.

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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/