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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 16:30:29 -0300 From: Marcos Paulo de Souza <marcos.souza.org@...il.com> To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> Cc: devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, Doug Oucharek <doug.s.oucharek@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@...el.com>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@...el.com>, lustre-devel@...ts.lustre.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: lusten: conrpc.c: fix different address space sparse warning On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 12:34:05PM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 04:09:03PM -0300, Marcos Paulo de Souza wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 09:31:14AM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:14:06PM -0300, Marcos Paulo de Souza wrote: > > > > head_up parameter is marked with __user attribute, tmp is filled > > > > by a copy_from_user from next, that is also marked as __user, so > > > > tmp.next needs to be "casted" as __user to make sparse happy. > > > > > > But is it the correct change? > > > > I don't know, it's my first sparse patch, so I tried to fix this > > warning. > > > > > > > > You also have a typo in your subject :( > > > > Sorry, didn't noticed yesterday :( > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Marcos Paulo de Souza <marcos.souza.org@...il.com> > > > > --- > > > > > > > > this is mt first patch addressing an issue of sparse, so let me know > > > > if I misunderstood the error message > > > > > > > > drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/selftest/conrpc.c | 2 +- > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/selftest/conrpc.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/selftest/conrpc.c > > > > index c6a683b..fb7ad74 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/selftest/conrpc.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/selftest/conrpc.c > > > > @@ -487,7 +487,7 @@ lstcon_rpc_trans_interpreter(struct lstcon_rpc_trans *trans, > > > > sizeof(struct list_head))) > > > > return -EFAULT; > > > > > > > > - if (tmp.next == head_up) > > > > + if ((struct list_head __user *)tmp.next == head_up) > > > > > > Aer you sure this is correct? __user changes for lustre is not > > > trivial... > > > > > > How did you test this? > > > > I didn't tested, it just removed the warning. Is this a false positive? > > I don't know, it's up to you to prove to me that you know this change is > correct. You have to justify your changes, and "because checkpatch.pl > complained" isn't a valid justification for something like this :) Fair enough, I'll take in another sparse report to work on. Thanks! > > thanks, > > greg k-h -- Thanks, Marcos
Powered by blists - more mailing lists