linux-kernel - Re: [patch] x86/ldt: silence a static checker warning

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]

Message-ID: <CALCETrV0h+rAFBsjFGeLFGhzVOs3snHGVV=ECKDeXhpC1-mkjA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 13 Jun 2016 14:14:39 -0700
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] x86/ldt: silence a static checker warning

On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 11:57 PM, Dan Carpenter
<dan.carpenter@...cle.com> wrote:
> It likely doesn't make a difference but my static checker complains
> that we put an upper bound on "size" but not a lower bound.  Let's just
> make it unsigned.

Shouldn't oldsize and newsize in write_ldt as well as the "size"
member in ldt_struct change, too?

--Andy