linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm64: traps: Mark __le16, __le32, _

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 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 <luc.vanoostenryck@...il.com>
To:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Stephen Boyd <stephen.boyd@...aro.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@....com>,
        linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: traps: Mark __le16, __le32, __user variables
 properly

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.

Luc