linux-kernel - Re: CHECKPATCH: strange warning on alignment modifier

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 08 Oct 2018 19:07:30 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...il.com>,
        Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: CHECKPATCH: strange warning on alignment modifier

On Mon, 2018-10-08 at 10:56 +0300, Igor Stoppa wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I have the following fragment of code:
> 
> +struct my_struct {
> +       atomic_long_t l __aligned(sizeof(atomic_long_t));
> +} __aligned(sizeof(atomic_long_t));
> 
> 
> triggering this warning, when fed to checkpatch.pl:
> 
> WARNING: function definition argument 'atomic_long_t' should also have 
> an identifier name
> #19: FILE: path/to/file.h
> +	atomic_long_t l __aligned(sizeof(atomic_long_t));
> 
> 
> gcc [(Ubuntu 7.3.0-16ubuntu3) 7.3.0] seems to be happy about it
> 
> I am using the HEAD from mainline.
> 
> My intent is to specify the alignment of both the field and the 
> structure (yes, probably redundant in this single-field case).
> 
> If I am doing something wrong, I can't figure out what it is, but I 
> don't understand why the WARNING is mentioning a function definition.

It's a defect in checkpatch.
For now, just ignore the message.
I will work on it later.