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
| ||
|
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists