| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <53F21F2C.9010905@vipserv.org> Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 17:43:40 +0200 From: Krzysztof Majzerowicz-Jaszcz <cristos@...serv.org> To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> CC: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>, jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers: net: ethernet: intel: e1000: e1000_ethtool.c coding style fixes On 18/08/14 17:40, Joe Perches wrote: > On Mon, 2014-08-18 at 17:36 +0200, Krzysztof Majzerowicz-Jaszcz wrote: >> On 18/08/14 17:31, Joe Perches wrote: >>> On Mon, 2014-08-18 at 08:29 -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote: >>>> Doing any kind of pointer math on a void pointer is generally unsafe as >>>> it is an incomplete type. The only reason why it works in GCC is >>>> because GCC has a nonstandard extension that makes it report as having a >>>> size of 1. >>> >>> I know. It's used in quite a few places in kernel code >>> so I believe it's now a base assumption for the kernel. >>> >> Ok, so what do you suggest - void* or char* here ? > > Do what you (or Alex) think is best. > > My main point was trying to make the code a bit > clearer.a > OK, thank you for your suggestions. I'll send an updated version of this patch soon. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists