linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kernel/fork.c: use sizeof() instead of sizeof

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:	Tue, 2 Feb 2016 15:45:31 +0000
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	Wei Tang <tangwei@...s.chinamobile.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	peterz@...radead.org, tj@...nel.org,
	kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, jason.low2@...com,
	xypron.glpk@....de, oleg@...hat.com, koct9i@...il.com,
	josh@...htriplett.org, ebiederm@...ssion.com, cyphar@...har.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/fork.c: use sizeof() instead of sizeof

On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 10:11:18AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Wei Tang <tangwei@...s.chinamobile.com> wrote:
> 
> > This patch fixes the checkpatch.pl warning to fork.c:
> > 
> > WARNING: sizeof sig->rlim should be sizeof(sig->rlim)
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Wei Tang <tangwei@...s.chinamobile.com>
> > ---
> >  kernel/fork.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/fork.c b/kernel/fork.c
> > index 2e391c7..30e04d2 100644
> > --- a/kernel/fork.c
> > +++ b/kernel/fork.c
> > @@ -1143,7 +1143,7 @@ static int copy_signal(unsigned long clone_flags, struct task_struct *tsk)
> >  	sig->real_timer.function = it_real_fn;
> >  
> >  	task_lock(current->group_leader);
> > -	memcpy(sig->rlim, current->signal->rlim, sizeof sig->rlim);
> > +	memcpy(sig->rlim, current->signal->rlim, sizeof(sig->rlim));
> >  	task_unlock(current->group_leader);
> >  
> >  	posix_cpu_timers_init_group(sig);
> 
> So there's over 1,000 such occurances in the kernel and we do not need this 
> drip-drip churn...
> 
> If anyone feels strongly about accepting such patches, then the right solution is 
> to create a Coccinelle semantic patch to run over the whole kernel and get over 
> with the churn once and for all.

That, or a single patch taking that piece of idiocy out of checkpatch.pl...