linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] nl80211: improve nl80211_parse_mesh

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: <1467110982.2493.10.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Date:	Tue, 28 Jun 2016 12:49:42 +0200
From:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Jouni Malinen <jouni@....qualcomm.com>,
	Emmanuel Grumbach <emmanuel.grumbach@...el.com>,
	linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nl80211: improve nl80211_parse_mesh_config type checking

On Wed, 2016-06-15 at 22:29 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> When building a kernel with W=1, the nl80211.c file causes a number
> of
> warnings, all about the same problem:
> 
> net/wireless/nl80211.c: In function 'nl80211_parse_mesh_config':
> net/wireless/nl80211.c:5287:103: error: comparison is always false
> due to limited range of data type [-Werror=type-limits]
> net/wireless/nl80211.c:5290:96: error: comparison is always false due
> to limited range of data type [-Werror=type-limits]
> net/wireless/nl80211.c:5293:124: error: comparison is always false
> due to limited range of data type [-Werror=type-limits]
> net/wireless/nl80211.c:5295:148: error: comparison is always false
> due to limited range of data type [-Werror=type-limits]
> net/wireless/nl80211.c:5298:106: error: comparison is always false
> due to limited range of data type [-Werror=type-limits]
> net/wireless/nl80211.c:5305:116: error: comparison is always false
> due to limited range of data type [-Werror=type-limits]
> 
> The problem is that gcc does not notice that the check is generate
> by a macro, so it complains about comparing an unsigned type against
> 0.
> 
> I've tried to come up with a way to rephrase that code in a way that
> avoids the warnings and otherwise improves the code as well.
> 
> This uses a set of new helper functions that perform the range
> checking,
> and should provide slightly better type safety than the older patch,
> at the expense of adding 44 lines to the code. Binary code size is
> basically unchanged though (20 bytes added to 126561 bytes .text).
> 
Applied.

johannes