linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: suppress sparse warning in copy_to

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, 04 Oct 2016 01:51:06 -0600
From:   "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...e.com>
To:     "Johannes Berg" <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc:     "Johannes Berg" <johannes.berg@...el.com>,
        "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...nel.org>, <x86@...nel.org>,
        "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: suppress sparse warning in copy_to_user()

>>> On 04.10.16 at 09:33, <johannes@...solutions.net> wrote:
> From: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>
> 
> __compiletime_object_size() is simply defined to __builtin_object_size()
> which gcc declares with (void *, int type) prototype.

If that was the case, everyone should have seen such warnings from
the day the original patch got introduced. And the compiler warnings
I get when testing with all four combinations of const and volatile also
supports this by saying "expected 'const void *' but ..." (arguably the
compiler should accept volatile here too). To be honest, for code in
other trees where I'm maintainer, I'd reject such casting away of
constness, and demand the utility to get fixed instead.

Jan