linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] drm/vmwgfx: use *_32

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: <1465979844.9515.11.camel@tiscali.nl>
Date:	Wed, 15 Jun 2016 10:37:24 +0200
From:	Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>
To:	VMware Graphics <linux-graphics-maintainer@...are.com>,
	Sinclair Yeh <syeh@...are.com>,
	Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@...are.com>
Cc:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
	dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/vmwgfx: use *_32_bits() macros

[Added Sinclair, Thomas, and "VMware Graphics".]

On do, 2016-04-14 at 07:34 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-04-14 at 13:32 +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
> > On do, 2016-03-03 at 11:26 +0100, Paul Bolle wrote:
> > > 
> > > Use the upper_32_bits() macro instead of the four line equivalent that
> > > triggers a GCC warning on 32 bits x86:
> > >     drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_cmdbuf.c: In function
> > > 'vmw_cmdbuf_header_submit':
> > >     drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_cmdbuf.c:297:25: warning: right
> > > shift count >= width of type [-Wshift-count-overflow]
> > >        val = (header->handle >> 32);
> > >                              ^
> > > 
> > > And use the lower_32_bits() macro instead of and-ing with a 32 bits
> > > mask.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>
> > > ---
> > > Note: compile tested only (I don't use any of vmware's products).
> > The warning can still be seen on v4.6-rc3 for 32 bits x86. This patch
> > applies cleanly to that rc.
> > 
> > Has anyone had a chance to look at this patch, and perhaps even test
> > it?
> 
> Test?  Nope.  Seems obviously correct.

This warning still shows up when building v4.7-rc3 for 32 bits x86.

Since my previous message an entry for this driver showed up in
MAINTAINERS. So I'd guess Sinclair, Thomas, etc want me to resend this
small patch. Is that correct?

Thanks,


Paul Bolle