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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <57F38C7D0200007800114CB1@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
Date:   Tue, 04 Oct 2016 03:03:25 -0600
From:   "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...e.com>
To:     "Johannes Berg" <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc:     "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 10:49, <johannes@...solutions.net> wrote:
>> > > If that was the case, everyone should have seen such warnings
>> > > from the day the original patch got introduced. 
>> > 
>> > Only if they run sparse. Clearly people don't, or we wouldn't have
>> > a history of a ton of such problems, e.g.
>> 
>> No - you say "which gcc declares with (void *, int type) prototype".
>> If that was the case, there would need to be a warning.
> 
> There would need to be a warning when?

If the declaration used "void *" instead of "const void *".

Jan