linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] Introduce __cond_lock

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: <20171223093910.GB6160@localhost>
Date:   Sat, 23 Dec 2017 01:39:11 -0800
From:   Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>,
        linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Introduce __cond_lock_err

+linux-sparse

On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 05:36:34AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 04:31:12AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 08:21:20PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 05:10:00PM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > > Yes, but this define is only #if __CHECKER__, so it doesn't matter what we
> > > > return as this code will never run.
> > > 
> > > It does matter slightly, as Sparse does some (very limited) value-based
> > > analyses. Let's future-proof it.
> > > 
> > > > That said, if sparse supports the GNU syntax of ?: then I have no
> > > > objection to doing that.
> > > 
> > > Sparse does support that syntax.
> > 
> > Great, I'll fix that and resubmit.
> 
> Except the context imbalance warning comes back if I do.  This is sparse
> 0.5.1 (Debian's 0.5.1-2 package).