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  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]
Date:   Wed, 22 Feb 2017 14:00:21 +0100
From:   Luc Van Oostenryck <>
To:     Will Deacon <>
Cc:     Mark Rutland <>,
        Stephen Boyd <>,
        Catalin Marinas <>,,,
        Punit Agrawal <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: traps: Mark __le16, __le32, __user variables

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 11:03:56AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 10:33:45PM +0100, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote:
> > It's easy enough to patch sparse to not issue a warning when the
> > override concerns a range (which would be perfect for the situation here),
> > Controlled or not by a new warning flag. But I'm far from convinced
> > that all uses of such "ranged-initialization" is used for default values
> > that may be later overridden.
> How about not warning only when the overridden range covers the entire
> length of the array? The only broken case I can think of that slips
> through the cracks then is if somebody typoed the range so that it
> accidentally covered the whole array and therefore suppressed the override
> warning.
> Will

I like it. Patch is coming.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists