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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 12:08:44 -0500 From: Qian Cai <cai@....pw> To: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com> Cc: pbonzini@...hat.com, vkuznets@...hat.com, wanpengli@...cent.com, jmattson@...gle.com, joro@...tes.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] kvm/emulate: fix a -Werror=cast-function-type On Fri, 2020-02-14 at 08:59 -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 10:56:08AM -0500, Qian Cai wrote: > > arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c: In function 'x86_emulate_insn': > > arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c:5686:22: error: cast between incompatible > > function types from 'int (*)(struct x86_emulate_ctxt *)' to 'void > > (*)(struct fastop *)' [-Werror=cast-function-type] > > rc = fastop(ctxt, (fastop_t)ctxt->execute); > > > > Fixes: 3009afc6e39e ("KVM: x86: Use a typedef for fastop functions") > > Signed-off-by: Qian Cai <cai@....pw> > > --- > > arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c | 8 +++++--- > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c b/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c > > index ddbc61984227..17ae820cf59d 100644 > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c > > @@ -5682,10 +5682,12 @@ int x86_emulate_insn(struct x86_emulate_ctxt *ctxt) > > ctxt->eflags &= ~X86_EFLAGS_RF; > > > > if (ctxt->execute) { > > - if (ctxt->d & Fastop) > > - rc = fastop(ctxt, (fastop_t)ctxt->execute); > > Alternatively, can we do -Wno-cast-function-type? That's a silly warning > IMO. I am doing W=1 on linux-next where some of the warnings might be silly but the recent commit changes all warnings to errors forces me having to silence those somehow. > > If not, will either of these work? > > rc = fastop(ctxt, (void *)ctxt->execute); > > or > rc = fastop(ctxt, (fastop_t)(void *)ctxt->execute); I have no strong preference. I originally thought just to go back the previous code style where might be more acceptable, but it is up to maintainers. > > > - else > > + if (ctxt->d & Fastop) { > > + fastop_t fop = (void *)ctxt->execute; > > + rc = fastop(ctxt, fop); > > + } else { > > rc = ctxt->execute(ctxt); > > + } > > if (rc != X86EMUL_CONTINUE) > > goto done; > > goto writeback; > > -- > > 1.8.3.1 > >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists