linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the suspend tree

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 23 May 2011 20:57:36 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Milton Miller <milltonm@....com>
Cc:	mgross <markgross@...gnar.org>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the suspend tree

On Monday, May 23, 2011, Milton Miller wrote:
> On Mon, 23 May 2011 about 14:18:46 -0000, mgross wrote:
> > On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 03:06:36PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi Rafael,
> > > 
> > > After merging the suspend tree, today's linux-next build (i386 defconfig
> > > among others) produced this warning:
> > > 
> > > kernel/pm_qos_params.c: In function 'pm_qos_power_write':
> > > kernel/pm_qos_params.c:420: warning: passing argument 3 of 'kstrtol' from incompatible pointer type
> > > include/linux/kernel.h:210: note: expected 'long int *' but argument is of type 's32 *'
> > > 
> > > Intreoduced by commit 365daa955e03 ("PM: Correct PM QOS's user mode
> > > interface to work with ascii input per").
> > 
> > Gah!  I'm sorry about that.
> > 
> > attached is a fix.
> > 
> > 
> > --mark
> > 
> > signed-off-by:markgross <markgross@...gnar.org>
> > 
> 
> (1) This should be in the patch, not the enclosing letter

That message is for me, actually.  I can fold the fix into the patch.

> (2) Incorrect capitalization

Doesn't matter, I can fix it up.

> (3) Incorrect spacing

Likewise.

> Please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches again.
> 
> > 
> > 
> > >From a8f0587b9ae598be5ca4c3cdda4e0ced6ca9baaf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: mgross <mgross@...8>
> > Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 07:14:09 -0700
> > Subject: [PATCH] clean up a compile time warning in the use of strict_strtol but that was
> >  passing an s32 * when it should be passing a long *
> > 
> 
> From should match Signed-off-by:

Not necessarily.

> Please seperate title (subject) and description body

Doesn't matter here.

> Maybe: pm_qos: strict_strtol takes a long, not s32
> 
> strict_strtol takes a pointer to long to store the converted value.
> introduced in xxxx ("change set title here")
> 
> So that the reviewers can quickly see if it needs to be backported
> to stable etc.
> 
> except read below
> 
> 
> > ---
> > kernel/pm_qos_params.c |    6 ++++--
> >  1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/pm_qos_params.c b/kernel/pm_qos_params.c
> > index d61ecf3..dd37c56 100644
> > --- a/kernel/pm_qos_params.c
> > +++ b/kernel/pm_qos_params.c
> > @@ -405,6 +405,7 @@ static ssize_t pm_qos_power_write(struct file *filp, const char __user *buf,
> >  		size_t count, loff_t *f_pos)
> >  {
> >  	s32 value;
> > +	long safe_int;
> >  	int x;
> >  	char ascii_value[11];
> >  	struct pm_qos_request_list *pm_qos_req;
> > @@ -417,10 +418,11 @@ static ssize_t pm_qos_power_write(struct file *filp, const char __user *buf,
> >  		ascii_value[count] = 0;
> >  		if (copy_from_user(ascii_value, buf, count))
> >  			return -EFAULT;
> > -		if ((x=strict_strtol(ascii_value, 16, &value)) != 0){
> > -			pr_debug("%s, 0x%x, 0x%x\n",ascii_value, value, x);
> > +		if ((x=strict_strtol(ascii_value, 16, &safe_int)) != 0){
> 
> Why are you doing an assignment in the if?  Why not assign first and
> compare later?

Because that's what the original code does?

> > +			pr_debug("%s, 0x%lx, 0x%x\n",ascii_value, safe_int, x);
> >  			return -EINVAL;
> 
> Nit: Some reason not to return -ERANGE if thats what strtol returned?  
> Folding to -EINVAL is ok but hides information.
> 
> >  		}
> > +		value = (s32) safe_int;
> 
> You call strict checking, which includes overflow checking, but
> only that the value fits in a long.  You then defeat that checking
> by casting to int.

That actually is a good point.

Thanks,
Rafael
--
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/