linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] vop: Add missing __iomem annotation in vop_dc_to

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: <87wo2gjqwm.wl-ashutosh.dixit@intel.com>
Date:   Sun, 02 Aug 2020 21:26:49 -0700
From:   "Dixit, Ashutosh" <ashutosh.dixit@...el.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <mst@...hat.com>,
        <sudeep.dutt@...el.com>, <arnd@...db.de>,
        <vincent.whitchurch@...s.com>, <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vop: Add missing __iomem annotation in vop_dc_to_vdev()

On Sun, 02 Aug 2020 21:24:01 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>
> On Sun, Aug 02, 2020 at 04:28:12PM -0700, Ashutosh Dixit wrote:
> > Fix the following sparse warnings in drivers/misc/mic/vop//vop_main.c:
> >
> > 551:58: warning: incorrect type in argument 1 (different address spaces)
> > 551:58:    expected void const volatile [noderef] __iomem *addr
> > 551:58:    got restricted __le64 *
> > 560:49: warning: incorrect type in argument 1 (different address spaces)
> > 560:49:    expected struct mic_device_ctrl *dc
> > 560:49:    got struct mic_device_ctrl [noderef] __iomem *dc
> > 579:49: warning: incorrect type in argument 1 (different address spaces)
> > 579:49:    expected struct mic_device_ctrl *dc
> > 579:49:    got struct mic_device_ctrl [noderef] __iomem *dc
> >
> > Cc: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com>
> > Cc: Sudeep Dutt <sudeep.dutt@...el.com>
> > Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> > Cc: Vincent Whitchurch <vincent.whitchurch@...s.com>
> > Cc: stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
>
> Why is this a stable thing?  It doesn't fix a real bug, and sparse
> warnings are not needed for stable trees, unless this is the last sparse
> warning there.

It is the last sparse warning. Sorry I wasn't sure about stable so I
thought might as well. Please ignore if it's not required. Thanks.