linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] staging: slicoss: fix different address space warnings

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: <CAMhs-H_sbKvaJ8g50K=Jni9r8gReuCB2SmeNxL3Wm8yZC6KTFg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 20 Nov 2016 09:21:51 +0100
From:   Sergio Paracuellos <sergio.paracuellos@...il.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Lior Dotan <liodot@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] staging: slicoss: fix different address space warnings

On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 06:57:18PM +0100, Sergio Paracuellos wrote:
>> Remove incorrect __iomem annotation.
>>
>> This patch fix the following sparse warnings in slicoss driver:
>> warning: incorrect type in assignment (different address spaces)
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sergio Paracuellos <sergio.paracuellos@...il.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/staging/slicoss/slic.h | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/slicoss/slic.h b/drivers/staging/slicoss/slic.h
>> index 420546d..14d7555 100644
>> --- a/drivers/staging/slicoss/slic.h
>> +++ b/drivers/staging/slicoss/slic.h
>> @@ -380,7 +380,7 @@ struct slic_shmemory {
>>       dma_addr_t isr_phaddr;
>>       dma_addr_t lnkstatus_phaddr;
>>       dma_addr_t stats_phaddr;
>> -     struct slic_shmem_data __iomem *shmem_data;
>> +     struct slic_shmem_data *shmem_data;
>
> But, is this the correct fix?  It looks like shmem_data is being treated
> like a pointer to io memory, so we need to use the correct accessors for
> that memory, and not just a "raw" pointer, right?  Removing this marking
> seems to be moving backwards...

That was the intention of v3 of the patch. But after Dan suggestions I
though that just
removing this mark would be enough because it was wrong. I am a little
lost now :)

Cheers,
    Sergio Paracuellos

>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h