linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] time/ntp fix

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]

Message-ID: <CAMuHMdUz4N4hBxDkYsOiWGz78Qb8Oe5=GweUSiXQR+AoVJp3QQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 22 Feb 2015 21:29:21 +0100
From:	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] time/ntp fix

Hi Ingo,

On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 6:49 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
> * John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 2:26 PM, Linus Torvalds
>> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 5:44 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> John Stultz (1):
>> >>       ntp: Fixup adjtimex freq validation on 32-bit systems
>> >
>> > This is confusing. 32-bit?
>>
>> Right, so the check that was added in a previous commit
>> is really only a concern for 64bit systems, but was
>> applied to both 32 and 64bit systems, which results in
>> breaking 32bit systems.
>>
>> Thus the "fix" here is to make the check only apply to
>> 64bit systems.
>
> Yeah, perhaps a better commit title would have been to
> write:
>
>      time/ntp: Fix adjtimex freq validation code build warning on 32-bit systems
>
> To make it clear that the problem fixed is a 32-bit
> warning, and that the fix for that is to only check on
> 64-bit systems.
>
> I agreed with your BITS_PER_LONG check when I reviewed your
> patch, people usually do an ugly #ifdef, I think this
> in line check form is nicer.

Unfortunately it doesn't help with all compiler versions.
With gcc 4.1.2 for m68k:

kernel/time/ntp.c: In function ‘ntp_validate_timex’:
kernel/time/ntp.c:641: warning: comparison is always false due to
limited range of data type
kernel/time/ntp.c:643: warning: comparison is always false due to
limited range of data type

Gcc 4.6.3 and 4.9.0 are OK (for m68k).

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds
--
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/