linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/21] powerpc: Remove warning on array size when empty

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: <CA+7wUsxsZrjHY8=TSUiMEgGMm72XyQRW47b7oqNjFGeFKLMd+w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 1 Mar 2018 08:01:12 +0100
From:   Mathieu Malaterre <malat@...ian.org>
To:     Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Cc:     Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/21] powerpc: Remove warning on array size when empty

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 3:55 AM, Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au> wrote:
> Mathieu Malaterre <malat@...ian.org> writes:
>
>> When neither CONFIG_ALTIVEC, nor CONFIG_VSX or CONFIG_PPC64 is defined, the
>> array feature_properties is defined as an empty array, which in turn
>> triggers the following warning (treated as error on W=1):
>>
>>   CC      arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.o
>> arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.c: In function ‘check_cpu_feature_properties’:
>> arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.c:298:16: error: comparison of unsigned expression < 0 is always false [-Werror=type-limits]
>>   for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(feature_properties); ++i, ++fp) {
>>                 ^
>> cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
>
> Ugh, that's annoying.
>
> This seems to work?
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.c
> index 4dffef947b8a..5215119e249c 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.c
> @@ -291,11 +291,11 @@ static inline void identical_pvr_fixup(unsigned long node)
>
>  static void __init check_cpu_feature_properties(unsigned long node)
>  {
> -       unsigned long i;
>         struct feature_property *fp = feature_properties;
>         const __be32 *prop;
> +       int i;
>
> -       for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(feature_properties); ++i, ++fp) {
> +       for (i = 0; i < (int)ARRAY_SIZE(feature_properties); ++i, ++fp) {
>                 prop = of_get_flat_dt_prop(node, fp->name, NULL);
>                 if (prop && be32_to_cpup(prop) >= fp->min_value) {
>                         cur_cpu_spec->cpu_features |= fp->cpu_feature;
>

Indeed that looks like the less invasive solution, I'll re-submit.

Should I resubmit the entire patch series (21 indep patches) or
re-submit only the 3 patches that were discussed (as part of a
different series) ?

Thanks