linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/5] mtd: spi-nor: Add driver for Adaptrum Anarion QSPI controller

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]

Message-ID: <054534f2-deed-a339-f82a-e3eba569b029@adaptrum.com>
Date:   Mon, 31 Jul 2017 15:59:17 -0700
From:   Alexandru Gagniuc <alex.g@...ptrum.com>
To:     Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
        linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
        Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        Cyrille Pitchen <cyrille.pitchen@...ev4u.fr>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] mtd: spi-nor: Add driver for Adaptrum Anarion QSPI
 controller

On 07/31/2017 03:43 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 08/01/2017 12:20 AM, Alexandru Gagniuc wrote:
>> On 07/31/2017 02:33 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>> On 07/31/2017 07:17 PM, Alexandru Gagniuc wrote:
>>>>>> +struct anarion_qspi {
>>>>>> +    struct        spi_nor nor;
>>>>>> +    struct        device *dev;
>>>>>> +    uintptr_t    regbase;
>>>>>
>>>>> Should be void __iomem * I guess ?
>>>>
>>>> I chose uintptr_t as opposed to void *, because arithmetic on void * is
>>>> not valid in C. What is the right answer hen, without risking undefined
>>>> behavior?
>>>
>>> What sort of arithmetic ? It's perfectly valid in general ...
>>
>> ISO/IEC 9899:201x, Section 6.5.6, constraint(2) is not met when the one
>> of the operands to addition is a void pointer.
>> Section 6.2.5 (19) defines void to be an incomplete type.
>
> Is that something new in C 201x draft ?

C99 had similar restrictions.

> Anyway, this would mean half of the drivers are broken, so I'm not convinced.

They are. Feel free to send me a private email if you want to discuss 
this further.

Alex