linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 4/4] gpio: xilinx: Utilize for_each_set

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]

Date:   Fri, 19 Jun 2020 16:26:28 +0200
From:   Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@...il.com>
To:     Syed Nayyar Waris <syednwaris@...il.com>
Cc:     kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        kbuild-all@...ts.01.org,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        William Breathitt Gray <vilhelm.gray@...il.com>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
        Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm Mailing List <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 4/4] gpio: xilinx: Utilize for_each_set_clump macro

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 11:27:18AM +0530, Syed Nayyar Waris wrote:

Hi, 

> Regarding the compilation warning reported above:
> 
> "sparse: shift too big (64) for type unsigned long" at line 639
> "sparse: invalid access past the end of 'old' (8 8)" at line 638
> 
> Kindly refer to the code above, at these line numbers.
> 
> I am in the process of fixing this warning. But what would be the fix?
> ? At the moment can't think of a code-fix to make the compilation
> warning disappear (specially at line 639). Can anyone please explain
> to me the meaning of the compilation warning more deeply?

This error message is caused by sparse doing the check too early.
There is thus nothing to be fixed for it in this code.

Best regards,
-- Luc