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]
Date:   Tue, 18 Jul 2017 21:53:40 +0200
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
Cc:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        IDE-ML <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Media Mailing List <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
        Pratyush Anand <panand@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/14] proc/kcore: hide a harmless warning

On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Ard Biesheuvel
<ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org> wrote:
> On 14 July 2017 at 10:25, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
>> gcc warns when MODULES_VADDR/END is defined to the same value as
>> VMALLOC_START/VMALLOC_END, e.g. on x86-32:
>>
>> fs/proc/kcore.c: In function ‘add_modules_range’:
>> fs/proc/kcore.c:622:161: error: self-comparison always evaluates to false [-Werror=tautological-compare]
>>   if (/*MODULES_VADDR != VMALLOC_START && */MODULES_END != VMALLOC_END) {
>>
>
> Does it occur for subtraction as well? Or only for comparison?

This replacement patch would also address the warning:

diff --git a/fs/proc/kcore.c b/fs/proc/kcore.c
index 45629f4b5402..35824e986c2c 100644
--- a/fs/proc/kcore.c
+++ b/fs/proc/kcore.c
@@ -623,7 +623,7 @@ static void __init proc_kcore_text_init(void)
 struct kcore_list kcore_modules;
 static void __init add_modules_range(void)
 {
-       if (MODULES_VADDR != VMALLOC_START && MODULES_END != VMALLOC_END) {
+       if (MODULES_VADDR - VMALLOC_START && MODULES_END - VMALLOC_END) {
                kclist_add(&kcore_modules, (void *)MODULES_VADDR,
                        MODULES_END - MODULES_VADDR, KCORE_VMALLOC);
        }

I have also verified that four of the 14 patches are not needed when building
without ccache, this is one of them:

 acpi: thermal: fix gcc-6/ccache warning
 proc/kcore: hide a harmless warning
 SFI: fix tautological-compare warning
 [media] fix warning on v4l2_subdev_call() result interpreted as bool

Not sure what to do with those, we could either ignore them all and
not care about ccache, or we try to address them all in some way.

        Arnd

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ